TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal before ITAT and the delay occurred may kindly be condoned. 3. During the course of hearing, the ld. DR has no objection to assessee application for condonation of delay and prayed that court may decide the issue as deem fit and proper in the case. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. The prayer as mentioned by the assessee for condonation of delay of 62 days has merit and we concur with the submission of the assessee. Thus the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 5. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. PCIT has erred in exercising the revisionary powers by passing the order u/s 263 of IT Act, 1961 setting aside the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 18.12.2018. The action of the ld. PCIT is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the order passed u/s 263. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. PCIT has erred in holding the order passed u/s 143(3) dated 18.12.2018 as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs.10,76,610/-found acceptable. 7. Thus, the total income assessed at Rs.10,76,610/- Credit of prepaid taxes allowed. The calculation sheet of Tax and Interest in ITNS-150, Demand notice u/s 156 are enclosed being part of the order." 8. Being aggrieved by the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the findings are reproduced as under:- "5. Therefore, In view of the above discussion, it is held that, the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the act on 18.12.2018 for A.Y. 2016-17 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. I place reliance on the following judicial pronouncements: 1. In the case of M/s Gee Vee Enterprises 99 ITR 375 ( Delhi High Court 0(1995). It was held that the Assessing Officer (AO) is not only an adjudicator but also in investigator, and failure of the AO to conduct the required inquiring and accepting the statement of the assessee without due verification renders the order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Absence of proper inquiring by the AO would render the assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue as held in following cases: 1. Jagdish Kumar ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade on protective basis [PB 68]. However, while passing the order u/s 263 she directed Id. AO to verify and, accordingly, check whether the tax liability would arise in the hands or her husband. Thus, the notice and order are conflicting. Once Id. PCIT concluded, based on her enquiry, that the addition in the hands of the assessee was to be made on protective basis she had no jurisdiction to procced ahead. 2. Without prejudice to above it is submitted that Id. PCIT in Para 2, Para 4.1, Para 4.2 categorically observed that the assessee sold the immovable property in the capacity of Power of Attorney holder. Hence, she held that the capital gains were to be taxed in the hands of the real owner i.e. Mahesh Medatwal and not the assessee who was just Power of Attorney holder. Ld. PCIT held that Id. AO failed to examine who was the rightful owner of such immovable property and, thus, Id. AO erred in taxing wrong person instead of Mahesh Medatwal. 3. Ld. PCIT also placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Shri C. Sugumaran- ITA no. 840 of 2014 and Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Gyan Chand Agarwal- ITA No. 266/JP/2017. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sold an immovable property during the year under consideration. The AO noted that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs.7,84,968/- which was not shown in ITR filed on 16-12-2016. Thereafter, the assessee had filed revised return showing deduction claimed of Rs.l7,84,968/- pm 31-03-2018 u/s 54F of the Act. The AO during the course of assessment noted that during the year the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act for which valuation report supporting the evidences as to such claim was submitted and the assessee had also shown the salary income of Rs.2,16,000/-. The AO further noted that the assessee filed the reply through A/R on the ITBA Portal vide letters dated 23-11-2018 and 04-12-2018 and the details so furnished by the assessee were verified by the AO and the AO after examining the details submitted by the assessee did not find any adverse inference as to the issue in question. Thus the returned income shown in the revised ITR filed on 31-03-2018 by the assessee at Rs.10,76,610- was accepted by the AO which means that the total income is assessed at Rs.10,76,610/- by the AO. In the present case however, the Ld. PCIT in the show cause notice, after taking note....