TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 648
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(1), Chennai u/s. 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2015-16 vide order dated 28.07.2017. 2. At the outset it is noticed that this appeal is time barred by 22 days as the order of PCIT was received by assessee on 17.03.2021 and appeal was to be filed before Tribunal on or before 16.06.2021, instead the appeal was filed by assessee only on 07.06.2021 thereby delay of 22 days. The Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the delay was due to Covid-19 pandemic and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and they have condoned the delay up to 28.02.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s per the provisions of law and accordingly, assessment framed by AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The PCIT also noted that the source of purchase of land and construction of building was not examined by the AO during original assessment proceedings. The PCIT finally observed as under:- "In view of the above, the cost of land at Nanmangalam and construction cost amounting to Rs. 1,61,50,000/- is not eligible for deduction u/s. 54F and the Long Term Capital Gain on the Rs. 2,28,00,000/- had to be brought to tax. It is pertinent to mention here that the land at Nanmangalam was purchased on 18.09.2014 as per Sale Deed No. 7876/2014, but this land was shown in the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2014 under the he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and before the sale. The building value admitted is Rs. 1,40,26,000/-. But the assessee adopted the Guideline Value assessed by the SRO of Rs. 98,00,000/-. But the same claimed in the deduction. Since the building was constructed after acquisition of the land, STCG on the transfer of building amounting to Rs. 98,00,000/- has to be brought to tax. Hence this is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Sec. 263 of the Act. Moreover the details, submitted by the assessee at time of hearing require fresh examination by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in conclusion the Assessing Officer has failed to make a complete verification with respect to the aspects as discussed supra and had passed the Assessment Order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, without pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sold property and purchased property is hereby enclosed. 8 (i) Calculation for capital Gain Exemption is hereby enclosed for the perusal of the Assessing Officer. (ii) There is no mismatch of Turnover explained as detailed below Turnover as per I.T.R Return : Rs. 4,10,91,500 Turnover as per Audit Report: Rs. 4,10,91,500 The ld. counsel further drew our attention to explanation submitted vide letter dated 18.07.2017 that the assessee has invested a sum of Rs. 1,61,50,000/- out of the above sale proceeds of Rs. 3.26 crores for the purchase of this land at Elumalai Street, Nanmangalam and construction thereon. It was also explained vide letters dated 18.07.2017 & 19.07.2017 at the time of assessment before the AO. 6. On the other han....