TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 850
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly assumed revision Jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The interconnected issue involved therein is on merits of the addition in the form of difference between stamp duty value on the date of registration of the property as against stamp duty valuation on the date of booking of the flats and the actual consideration and directed to be added by the Pr. CIT in the sum of Rs. 1,13,43,600/- as against Rs. 22,78,740/-. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income for the A.Y.2015-16 on 31/03/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 78,19,090/-. The assessee is engaged in the business of real e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w of Section 43CA of the Act while adjudicating the issue, even though relevant enquiries were indeed made by the ld.AO while framing the assessment. 3.1. The basis of framing of addition by the ld AO in the sum of Rs. 22,78,740/- u/s.43CA of the Act is as under:- S. N. Carpet Area Booking Date Agreement Value Market value on booking Date of 1st installment Full considered received Registration date Market value on registration Difference Difference in% A B C 1 201 450 14.12.11 4000000 4812825 04.12.13 05.12.14 07.05.14 7625500 812825 20.32 % 2 202 450 14.12.11 4000000 4812825 23.01.14 06.02.14 07.05.14 7625500 812825 20.32 % 3 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the flat should be considered in terms of Section 43CA of the Act. We find that the provisions of Section 43CA of the Act has been introduced in the statute w.e.f. 01/04/2014 relevant to the A.Y.2014-15 and hence, the same is applicable for the year under consideration. From the aforesaid table, it could be seen that the prospective buyers had booked the flats from the assessee on 14/12/2011, 08/03/2013, 08/05/2011 & 10/05/2013 whereas the registration of those flats had effectively happened on 07/05/2014, 07/07/2014, 19/07/2014 and 26/11/2014, thereby clearly proving the time gap between the date of booking of flats and the date of registration of the flats in favour of the prospective buyers by the assessee. Hence, there arises a doubt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the ld. AO having taken a plausible view in the matter and the ld. PCIT is only trying to substitute his view in place of the view already taken by the ld. AO. This, in our considered opinion, cannot be done by the ld. PCIT by invoking his revision jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd., reported in 203 ITR 108. Moreover, we find that the ld. AO had not committed any error in the order as he had apparently applied the provisions of Section 43CA(3) of the Act. Hence, the twin conditions that are required for invoking revision jurisdiction i.e. (i) order of the ld. AO should be erroneous and (ii) it should be prejudicial t....