TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 548
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- and was selected for limited scrutiny. The AO issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and in response to such notices an authorized representative on behalf of the assessee appeared before the AO and filed written submissions and explained income returned. The AO accepted the return of income filed by the assessee and completed scrutiny assessment vide its order dated 20-12-2016 u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 4. As matter stood thus the Pr. CIT-2, Aurangabad on verification of assessment records for the year under consideration show caused assessee why the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for following reasons: i. Firstly, for showing investment in two residential units; and ii. Secondly, for showing purchase price of said property at Rs. 70,00,000/- which is 1346% above market price of Rs. 4,84,000/- 5. In reply, it was explained that the developer/builder M/s. Golden Dreams Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. executed Deed of Assignment (Sale Deed) on 31-07-2014 in favour of assessee and the said date is to be considered as date of purchase of residential unit. Furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uted between M/s. Golden Dreams Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Muzaffar Mahmood Khan viz. assessee before us being owner/assignor and purchaser/assignee, respectively wherein it was agreed to allot undivided area/ two units admeasuring 200 sq. ft. built up area in IT building No. IT-1 in IT Park known as "Premchand Infocity" for a total consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Further, it was agreed to assign two residential unit of "Premchand Infocity IT Park" in Cluster "A" building No. A-7, bearing No. 701 & 702 located on sixth floor for a total consideration of Rs. 68,00,000/-. Further, the said Agreement speaks that the undivided area of 200 sq. ft. of IT Unit and Residential Unit in IT Park are inseparable and the assessee shall not be entitled to transfer undivided area in IT Building and Residential Unit separately. Therefore, it is clear that the assessee made investments in two IT Units and two Residential Units. Though, the Agreement to Assign said to have been before the AO, it appears from assessment order no reference whatsoever made by the AO in terms of claim u/s. 54F of the Act. 9. Shri S.B. Prasad, the ld. DR contended that this is a case of lack of enquiry by the AO and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout considering the same he completed assessment and allowed the claim of assessee u/s. 54F of the Act without referring and recording the same in the assessment order. In our opinion, in the present case having no report from the Valuation Officer, the AO allowed the claim of assessee establishes that the AO failed to examine the claim of assessee in terms of law contemplated therein. 12. Coming to the decision as relied on by the ld. AR it was submitted with reference to the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 296 of 2013 order dated 03-02-2015 that in respect of query raised by the AO, the assessee submitted all details and considering the same the AO allowed claim which indicates the application of mind by the AO. The ld. DR submitted that the claim therein was examined by the AO and held some amount as capital expenditure and remaining as revenue expenditure shows the AO examined the claim of miscellaneous expenses aggregating to Rs. 2.94 crores. He argued that AO in the present case, no discussion have been made by the AO. We find force in the arguments of ld. DR for the reason a speci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n its own on examination of assessment record initiated proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act. We note that in the said case the AO applied his mind and has made queries with respect to source of investments by recording statements of unsecured creditors. In the original proceedings, the AO did not find any discrepancies in the statements made by the unsecured creditors and the explanation furnished by the assessee, but however to substitute original opinion taking the shelter of paucity of time for conducting detailed enquiries, the AO proposed initiation of 263 proceedings. Having considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal held the provisions of section 263 cannot be allowed to be misused by the AO to super impose opinion different from the one taken at the time of original assessment proceedings. In present case, taking into consideration the assessment order, we find no opinion whatsoever expressed by the AO in allowing the claim of assessee u/s. 54F of the Act. Therefore, the order of this Tribunal in the case of Rajesh Chandrakant Shah (HUF) (supra) as relied on by the ld. AR is not applicable to the present case. 15. In respect of....