TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 46
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled by the assessee against the order of the Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax [Pr.CIT]-1, Visakhapatnam vide F.No.Pr.CIT-1/VSP/263/2017-18 dated 29.12.2017 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2009-10. 2. In this case, the assessee is an individual drawing salary from Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. He has filed the return of income on 22.03.2010 declaring income from salary of Rs. 2,27,370/- and the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (in short 'Act'). Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Visakhapatnam that the assessee had received the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- towards commission from Shri S.V.S.S.R.Sastry (Shri Sastry). The said information was collected by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said property. However, the Pr.CIT found that the AO has completed the assessment without making proper verification or enquiries regarding liability of capital gains tax on transfer of the said property. Accordingly, the Ld.Pr.CIT has issued notice u/s 263 directing the assessee to explain as to why the assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 should not be revised u/s 263 of the Act. 3. In response to the notice issued, the assessee has explained that though the sale agreement was entered for initial consideration of Rs. 30,000/-, he has paid the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- on various occasions upto the financial year 2006-07 for acquiring the property. The assessee also furnished the details of the sources for payment of the sum of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the expenditure for gravel filling, leveling of site and construction of wall and shed was also not accepted by the Ld.Pr.CIT in the absence of supporting evidences. Hence, the Ld.Pr.CIT held that the assessment order passed by the AO without verification of the issues is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, accordingly set aside the assessment and directed the AO to bring the entire long term capital gains arising from transfer of subject property to tax by taking the amount of Rs. 32,400/- as cost of acquisition and Rs. 8,00,000/- as sale consideration. The Ld.Pr.CIT further directed the AO to verify the correctness of assessee's claim with regard to cost of improvement for construction of shed and to allow the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the Ld.Pr.CIT has rightly taken the case for revision which required to be upheld. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the assessment was reopened for verification of the commission received from Shri Sastry. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained that he had received the money of Rs. 8.00 lakhs from Shri Sastry in the year 2008 which was his own money returned by Shri Sastry which was given in the year 1999 for purchase of the land admeasuring 180 sq.yds at Balayyasastry Layout. According to the assessee it was not a commission. Though the assessee stated that he had received the money paid by him to Shri Sastry,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter dated 24.06.2007 placed in paper book annexed in page No.14 shows that the property was in possession of Shri S.V.Ramana Rao and the assessee intended to register the property in his own name. All these facts establish that the AO did not verify the details and actual sale consideration, hence, there was an error in the assessment order. Similarly, the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs. The same was allowed without supporting evidence. Hence, the assessment order passed by the AO was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, we hold that the Ld.Pr.CIT has rightly taken up the case for revision u/s 263 and the same is upheld. However, the Ld.Pr.CIT directed the AO to bring the sale consideration for long term capita....