2021 (8) TMI 631

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. However, after going through the impugned orders and the available records on the files and after hearing the ld. DR, we proceed to adjudicate the captioned appeals. 3. First, we will take up the assessee's appeal ITA No.443/Kol/2020 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. ITA No.443/Kol/2020 Assessment Year 2015-16 - 4. In this appeal, the assessee has contested the invocation of revision jurisdiction by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act, whereby, he has set aside the assessment order of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. 5. A perusal of the impugned order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act reveals that the Ld. PCIT observed that the assessee had debited certain expenses ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ame. 5. The ld. PCIT without pointing out any error or discrepancy in the submissions of the assessee simply observed that the aforesaid explanation of the assessee was not made available to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. He, therefore, set aside the assessment order dated 18.12.2017 for de novo assessment. 6. We have gone through the impugned order and record on the file and heard the submissions of the ld. DR. In this case, the ld. PCIT has failed to mention as to how the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In respect of the queries raised by the Ld. PCIT, the assessee gave explanations. The Ld. PCIT could not find any error or discrepancy in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Revenue and accordingly issued show-cause notice to the assessee u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. 8. In his submission dated 28.01.2020, the assessee stated that it was a fact that the assessee was having self-occupied house property at S.P.Mukherjee Road, Kolkata. The assessee was 50% owner of the said property with his wife Ms. Sarita Bajaj. The assessee also submitted that the assessee had paid advance against property at DLF and the deed of conveyance of the said property was dated 7thApril, 2016. The assessee was 50% owner of the property with his daughter Ms. Anshuma Rustagi. The assessee claimed that as the property was registered in April 2016, question of letting out in F.Y. 2015-16 did not arise. The assessee had let out the p....