TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 380
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that the assessment completed u/s 143(3) dated 30-10- 2015 is erroneous in as much as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order without making inquiries and without proper verification of the facts and the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind before accepting the claim of the assessee for adopting the value of the property as per the valuation report, for making additions u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that in this case the Assessing Officer has issued a show cause notice dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urn of income for the assessment year 2015-16 was filed on 30.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 91,24,850/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 14, Pune ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 30.10.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at total income of Rs. 1,00,06,600/- after making the addition of Rs. 8,81,750/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act in respect of purchase of land bearing Survey No.130, Mouza Lawa, P.H. No.4, Khate Kramank 99, Village Lawa, Tahsil- Nagpur, Dist- Nagpur. 4. Subsequently, on reviewing the assessment record, the ld. PCIT formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erron....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter dated 14.11.2019 contending that the Assessing Officer had examined the issue of valuation of property in question and had chosen to make addition of Rs. 8,81,750/- under the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act based on the valuation report furnished by the appellant. Thus, it was contended that it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer made the assessment without any application of mind. In support of this, reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd., 203 ITR 108 (Bom.-HC) and the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers, 259 ITR 502 (Guj.-HC). 5. On due consideration of the above submissions, the ld. PCIT held that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ting the validity of jurisdiction u/s 263 can also deal with the merits of the issue sought to be revised by the PCIT. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mubarak Gafur Korabu vs. ITO, 117 taxmann.com 828 (Pune-Trib.) and the decision of Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Yogesh Maheshwari vs. DCIT, 125 taxmann.com 273 (Jaipur - Trib.) in support of the proposition that the agricultural land cannot come within the purview of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. 8. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR vehemently opposed the plea of the appellant, the lands in question are agricultural lands, which does not come within the ambit of section 56(2)(vii)(b). He submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) and in the case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an "erroneous". Therefore, the issue which is required to be examined by us is whether the Assessing Officer carried out enquiry or verification on the issue of applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) in respect of purchase of lands situated at Survey No.130, Mouza Lawa, P.H. No.4, Khate Kramank 99, Village Lawa, Tahsil- Nagpur, Dist- Nagpur during the course of assessment proceedings or not?. In the present case, no doubt, ....