TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee is time barred by 9 days. The AR further submitted that the assessee could not file appeal within the time allowed under the Act, mainly due to lockdown imposed by the Govt. on account of spread of Covid- 19 infections and in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court suo motu Writ Petition No.3 of 2020, if the period of delay is covered within the period specified in the order of the Apex Court , then same needs to be condoned in view of specific problem faced by the public on account of Covid-19 pandemic. 3. The learned DR, on the other hand, fairly agreed that delay may be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. Having heard both sides and considered reasons given by the learned AR, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motu W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....il. The case was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee has declared long term capital gain from transfer of a property vide document No.2239/2006 for a consideration of Rs.2,62,30,000/-. The Assessing Officer, after considering relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of guideline value of property as on 01.04.1981 towards cost of acquisition computed long term capital gain at Rs.1,55,52,949/- . The case has been subsequently taken up for revision proceedings and accordingly, show-cause notice u/s.263 dated 24.02.2021 was issued on the assessee and called upon the assessee to explain as to why assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer shall not be revised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue and hence, set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to redo assessment in light of discussions given in 263 order. Aggrieved by the PCIT order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned A.R for the assessee submitted that the learned PCIT erred in revising assessment order u/s.263 of the Act, without appreciating fact that capital gain derived from transfer of property cannot be assessed for the impugned assessment year and thus, difference consideration received as per provisions of section 50C of the Act cannot be subject matter of revision proceedings for the impugned assessment year. 8. The learned DR, on the other ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.2,62,30,000/-, whereas guideline value of property has been fixed by the Registration Department at Rs.4,10,70,379/- and said value has been determined by the Stamp & Registration Department on 11.02.2009. From the above, it is very clear that there is difference between stated consideration in the document and guideline value of property. 10. In light of above factual background, if you examine the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and order of the PCIT passed u/s.263 of the Act, we need to understand whether the PCIT is right in exercising his powers u/s.263 of the Act or not. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer has caused necessary inquiries with regard to computation of long term capital gain derived transfer of propert....