TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 905
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by ACIT, Non Corporate Circle 15(1), Chennai for the AY 2016-17 u/s. 143 ( 3 ) of the Act vide order dated 19.11.2018. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is whether the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143 ( 3 ) dated 19.11.2018 is erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue on the ground that the valuation requires verification based on correct address given by the buyer. The second issue is whether the PCIT is right in revising the assessment framed u/s. 143 ( 3 ) of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act, where the assessee has objected to the value adopted by stamp valuation authority which is higher than the consideration declared in sale deed. For this assessee has raised following gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of section 50C of the Act, the AO has allowed the market value and indexation in respect of sold property as claimed by assessee without proper verification. According to PCIT the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 19.11.2018 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Assessing Officer was asked to show cause as to why the assessment order not be set aside. 4. The assessee replied to this show cause notice stating that the assessee has objected to the department considering the value adopted by the stamp valuation as per the sale consideration in terms of section 50C(1) of the Act. Even the assessee produced valuation report by an approved valuer in respect of his property along with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration as per sale deed and guideline value fixed by stamp valuation authority and because the guideline value is higher than the sale consideration as shown in the sale deed, it cannot be a reason for holding that the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Admittedly in the present case the assessee has registered the sale consideration in the sale deed of the property sold at Rs. 6,01,47,000/- as against the value adopted by sub-registrar office for charging stamp duty in view of the guideline value fixed at Rs. 9,51,20,528/-. The assessee sold the property of an extent of 9980 sq.ft, bearing Door #31F, Old Door #59, New Door #109, Anna Salai Lane (Mount Road), Guindy Ranganathan Street, Guindy, Chennai -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nding that the order of the AO i.e., the assessment order is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue and how. We have already noted the finding of PCIT in above para 4 and noted that simple assumption made by PCIT is that to verify the facts and pass assessment order but the PCIT has nowhere recorded the fact that how the assessment order is erroneous so as to prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The case law cited by Ld. Counsel for the assessee of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs Jagadhri Electric Supply & Industrial Co. [1983] 140 ITR 0490, as regards to assumption of jurisdiction, Hon'ble High Court held that the tribunal cannot substitute the grounds which the CIT(A) did not find proper to form the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enge the grounds for decision given by him in his order. At the time of the hearing, if the assessee can satisfy the Tribunal that the grounds for decision given in the order by the Commissioner are wrong on facts or are not tenable in law, the Tribunal has no option, but to accept the appeal and to set aside the order of the Commissioner. The Tribunal cannot uphold the order of the Commissioner on any other ground which, in its opinion, was available to the Commissioner as well. If the Tribunal is allowed to find out the ground available to the Commissioner to pass an order under Section 263(1) of the Act, then it will amount to a sharing of the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Commissioner, which is not warranted under the Act, It is ....