TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 1120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following questions of law: Whether on the facts, in the circumstances and on the grounds and contentions urged: (i) the Tribunal was right in holding that there is no infirmity in the order of revision passed by the Respondent under Section 263 of the Act and thereby affirming that the original assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue? (ii) the Tribunal was right in holding that no enquiry was made by the AO during the original assessment proceedings as to whether the income arising from sale of the property in question was chargeable under the head Capital Gains or as its income from business and thereby gave a perverse finding? (ii....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harge, education cess and interest, a total demand of Rs.8,50,38,928/- was made. 4. On 05.03.2013, the CIT(A), Bangalore IV, passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act' for short), setting-aside the Assessment order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. Pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer passed fresh order on 18.04.2013 and completed the assessment by treating the income offered under the head 'Capital gains' as income from business. Assessee challenged the said order as also the order passed under Section 263 of the IT Act before the ITAT in ITAs Nos.596(Bang)/2013 and 42(Bang)/2015. The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed against order under Section 263 of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITAT has remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the case on merits. Therefore, the substantial questions of law raised by the assessee do not merit any consideration. With these submissions, he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. 7. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 8. The Assessing Officer has recorded in para 2 of his order that the assessee had purchased the property in question with an intention to build Tech Park, but due to recession, the building was not constructed and as the firm had no funds, assessee sold the land. To a pointed question to Shri. Dilip with regard to the factual aspect recorded by the Assessing Officer, he did not dispute the same. However, he urged that assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd., after considering Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., has held that where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer had taken one view the same cannot be treated as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 11. In Taparia Tools Ltd., the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that it has been repeatedly held that the entries in the books of account are not determinative or conclusive and the matter has to be examined on the touchstone of provisions contained in the Act. 12. Shri. Dilip has placed reliance on paragraph No.10 in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. We may record that in para 7 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has recorded that Section 263 of the IT Act could not be invoked to correct each a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as constituted in March 2004 and the property was purchased in April 2004 and sold on February 14, 2008. The expenses recorded above are towards interest, professional charges paid to Advocate, the consultancy firm and the brokerage. The said expenditure works out to Rs.2,01,78,900/-. The expenditure of Rs.2,67,540/- upon which the Revenue is placing reliance upon, is recorded in the order passed by the ITAT in para 6. The ITAT has also noted that certain expenditure was on account of professional and consultancy charges and it was shown as net loss for that year. A careful analysis of the facts of the case indicate that although the property was purchased with an intention to construct a Tech Park, the same was sold for want of funds. No d....