TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 85
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-15 vide revision orders dated 27/12/2019 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Jabalpur ("Pr. CIT" for short). 2. The relevant facts, identical for both the cases, are that the return/s of income was selected for scrutiny under CASS for examining "large investment in immovable property as compared to taxable income", inasmuch as, as per the AIR information, the appellant-brothers had jointly purchased a property, being land situate at Ward No.3, C No.59, Swami Dayanand Saraswati Ward, Jabalpur, during the relevant year for a consideration of Rs. 50 lacs. The Assessing Officer (AO) verified the sources of investment for both the cases and, finding the same as satisfactorily explained, accepted the return/s of income. Subsequently,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Assessing Officer to verify the above mentioned facts and non-application of mind for proper examination of the case has rendered the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The intention of bringing this explanation in the statute was to clarify the expression "erroneous and prejudicial". Further, now the scope of exercising the power u/s 263 can legitimately be evolved if the AO has passed the assessment order without making inquiries or verification which should have been made. 9. I, therefore, am satisfied that the assessment order passed by the AO in this case is, erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because the AO had not conducted proper inquiry....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said Act. The sale is thus complete on 30/3/2013 itself, constituting transfer u/s. 2(47)(i) of the Act. The matter, he would continue, is squarely covered by the decision in Mormasji Mancharji Vaid (supra), which in fact stands relied upon by the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in ITO vs. Rakhi Agrawal (in ITA No. 94/JAB/2018, dated 27/10/2020). He was, however, unable to answer a query by the Bench as to how could the AO be regarded as having verified the source/s of investment which, as per the sale deed, is vide cheques, three of which, aggregating to Rs. 30 lacs, were dated 20/04/2013, while the source of investment, as verified and confirmed by him, also include sources dated 01/01/2014 (for Rs. 10 lacs), and dated 28/05/2013 & 05/09/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal in Vishal Sethi vs. ITO (in ITA No. 57/Jab/2019, dated 07/09/2020 and Nitin Sharma vs. Pr. CIT [2020] 60 CCH 415 (Jab). The assessee has fairly not contested this aspect. 4.2 Our second observation in the matter is that the arguments advanced and the case set up by Shri Purohit before us is de hors both the assessment as well as the impugned order. There has admittedly been no examination of the aspect of the applicability or otherwise of s. 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) by the AO, whose order, in view of the apparent inconsistencies between the dates of the investment under reference and that of the stated source/s thereof, we find as wholly without application of mind. True, that aspect (i.e., source of investment) is no longer in issue. The sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the statue. Remission for inquiry, as against doing it himself, is solely his preserve and prerogative, which we could not be called upon to interfere, much less exercise the said power itself. That would be in our view an excess of jurisdiction and transgression of power. The Hon"ble Courts have, both in the context of 263, as in CIT v. Mahavar Traders [1996] 220 ITR 167 (MP)(where, in it"s words, the Tribunal itself started making inquiries); CIT vs. Eastern Medikit Ltd. [201(1)] 337 ITR 56 (Del)(where the Tribunal proceeded to decide the issue on merits, converting itself into a court of first instance), as well as generally, disapproved such a course being adopted, being no more than a usurpation of power. In fact, even on merits, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee/s, at any given time. It is, for instance, on 30/3/2013 (or even 31/3/2013), either the assessee/s or the vendor who is the owner of the property. The actual reason for the delayed registration by the registering authority, and its legal implications, would also need to be determined. The provisions of the Stamp Act may have a bearing in the matter, i.e., with reference to the Registration Act. Further, the provisions of Registration and Other Relevant Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001 may also be relevant in the matter. Further still, the property under reference, as a perusal of the "sale deed", also read-out during hearing, shows, is a "lease", so that there can apparently be no "sale", which implies transfer of absolute rights, i.e., on fre....