2022 (10) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... completed on 27.12.2018 assessing the Nil total income. 2.1. On scrutiny of the assessment records by the Ld. PCIT, it was noticed that the assessee company sold two plots namely Plot Nos. 60 and 61 at Mouje Rakhial at Maninagar admeasuring 21276 sq. mtr. being factory building/shed for a sale consideration of Rs. 37.98 Crores on 11.06.2015 whereas the assessee purchased the above land for a consideration of Rs. 5,09,04,313/- from different conveyance deed on 19.05.1999. While completing the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed indexed cost of acquisition of the property as Rs. 5,09,04,313/- but the Assessing Officer failed to verify the evidence of payment of the cost of acquisition of Rs. 1,55,86,793/- by the assessee. Similarly the assessee computed the capital gains on 37.50 Crores whereas the sale consideration as per the registered sale deed was Rs. 37.98 Crores. Thus the assessee has taken less consideration of Rs. 48,00,000/- while computing the capital gains. Thus the assessment order passed is an erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore the Ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice dated 15.03.2021 to file the following details/documentary evi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 0 4,800,000 Less: B/f Business Loss* (171,796,544) (171,796,544) Taxable Income 0 0 Tax liability under the Normal provisions (A) 0 0 Tax under MAT provisions:     Book Profit 69,906,485 69,906,485 Tax liability under the MAT provisions (B) 1,29,32,700 12,932,700 Total Tax liability (higher of A or B) 12,932,700 12,932,700 *Loss c/f to future years 93,198,518 88,398,518 2.3. Thus the assessee requested to drop the Revision proceedings proposed u/s. 263 of the Act. The Ld. PCIT considered the above reply and held that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind and allowed the capital gain offered by the assessee with a lessor consideration of Rs. 48,00,000/- and without ascertaining the correct cost of acquisition and cost of indexation adopted for the assessment year 1997-98 whereas the original purchase of the properties were actually registered in the subsequent assessment year. Thus the assessment order passed by the A.O. is an erroneous order and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly the assessment order is set aside with a direction to the A.O. to make requisite inquires and pr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e fresh assessment order be cancelled and the order passed by Ld. Pr. C.I.T. be set aside and quashed. 4. Without prejudice to the above, the Learned Pr. CIT has erred in passing the order u/s. 263 of the Act both on facts and in law, without appreciating detailed submission and the fact that order is not at all prejudicial to the interest of revenue. It is submitted that even though the amount of addition/disallowance made to the total income of the assessee as drawn by Ld. Pr. CIT in order passed u/s 263, the final tax liability does not get change and remains payable under the MAT only. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the directions given to set aside the original assessment and passing the fresh assessment order be cancelled and the order passed by Ld. Pr. C.I.T. u/s 263 giving such incorrect directions be set aside and quashed. It be so held now. 5. The order passed by the learned Pr. C.I.T is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same be held so now. 4. Ld. Counsel Mr. Sunil Talati appearing for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Lower Authorities and filed a Paper Book contai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee case was fixed for hearing on 23.03.2021 as it is getting time barred by 31.03.2021 for revision proceedings. The assessee vide its detailed reply dated 24.03.2021 submitted that the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore requested to drop the revision proceedings and also brought to the attention of the Ld. PCIT that the assessee vide its letter dated 11.10.2018 and 18.10.2018 submitted all the details required by the Assessing Officer and thereafter the assessment order was passed. There is no prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as for the present assessment year, as the assessee paid tax under the MAT provisions u/s. 115JB only and no tax payable under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act because of carry forward losses. In our considered view, the present Revision proceedings itself is unjustifiable. 6.1. It is appropriate to quote the Jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamal Galani reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 261 (Guj.) wherein the Hon'ble High Court held as follows: 20. In this context, we may recall, the Assessing Officer had examined two iss....