2021 (5) TMI 918

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....edings under section 263 of come Tax Act, 1961 ( Act) by wrongly assuming jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and hence, the order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of Act is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab- initio. 2. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the Ld. PCIT erred in setting aside the assessment and has also erred in holding that the original assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of case and in law, the directions issued by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of Act are erroneous, vague, ambiguous and untenable and, therefore the order u/ s 263 of the Act passed b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the assessment year 2015- 16 was completed in November, 2017 at income of Rs. 3 ,30,61 ,960/- u/ s 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act. On perusal of the record, it is found that the assessee has claimed deduction of Rs. 6,12 ,10,100 /- u/s 54F of the Act. However the assessee has sold equity shares of Rs. 9 ,74,40 ,000/- and has gained LTCG amounting Rs. 9,72,95 ,775/- after indexation. The assessee has invested Rs. 6,12,10 ,100/- ( including incident expenses) into a new residential house and has claimed deduction u/ s 54F of this whole amount. However, as per section 54 F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 assessee is eligible for deduction to the extent of proportion to amount of Capital Gain invested in new residential house. The eligible deductio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... s 54F of the Act and justification of investment in purchase of new specified asset. 4. In view of the above, and there is no plausible explanation by the assessee, and besides, proper inquiry has also not been done. 5. From analysis of the assessment records, it is obvious that the assessment order passed by the then assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue." 6. Heard the arguments of both the parties. 7. The primary contention of the ld. AR is that the case of the assessee has been selected for limited scrutiny on two grounds viz. verification of Purchase of property and verification of deduction claimed under the head capital gain and expanding the scope of scrutiny by the way of order u/ s 263 is ....