TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... return of income on 28.08.2015 declaring income of Rs.64,71,190/-. This return was revised on 02.09.2015 declaring income of Rs.64,71,190/-. This return was selected for scrutiny assessment. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on the following reasons :- 1. Sales consideration of property in ITR is less than sales consideration reported in Form 26QB. 2. Tax credit claimed in ITR is less than tax credit available in 26AS. 3. Large difference in opening stock of current year and closing stock of previous year shown in P & L account as per Return of income. 4. Mismatch in sales turnover reported in Audit Report and ITR 5. The assessee filed detailed reply giving explanation point wise in respect of each and every reason for scrutiny selection. Such detailed reply are available in the paper book from pages 50 to 51 alongwith supporting evidences in the form of copies of ledger account, copies of computation of income and copies of financial statement of account. 6. After carefully perusing the reply and the documentary evidences the assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at an assessed income of Rs.65,04,660/-. 7.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hown any such capital. As one of the reasons for selection of case under limited scrutiny was substantial income in capital, the issue remained unattended. 4. In this background, you are given an opportunity to show cause as to why an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 should not be passed to set right the above omission. In case you intend to furnish submission, then you are accorded an opportunity to submit the same. Your case is fixed for hearing on 11.03.2020 at 4.00 PM in Room No. 215. C.R. Building. I. P. Estate, New Delhi. Please note that in case of failure to make any submission by this date, the case will be decided on the and the evidences available on record and no further submission will be entertained. 8. Assessee filed a point wise reply to each and every issue raised by the PCIT and the reply has been exhibited in the body of the order of the PCIT from pages- 3 to 7. 9. A detailed reply of the assessee did not find any favour with the PCIT who after referring to various judicial decisions concluded that the assessment order framed u/s.143 (3) of the Act is not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 10. We have gi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ect of stock valuation, sales turnover mismatch, mismatch in income/ capital gain/ on sale of land or building, increase in capital, tax credit mismatch alongwith copies of ledger accounts which have been duly examined by the AO before framing the Assessment Order u/s. 143 (3) of the Act. Exhibit 50 to 56 of the paper book clearly show that to the specific querry of the AO specific reply was furnished by the assessee. 18. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DLF Limited 350 ITR 555 has held as under :- * It is not mere prejudice to the revenue, or a mere erroneous view which can be revised under section 263. There should be the added element of 'unsustainability' in the order of the Assessing Officer, which clothes the Commissioner with jurisdiction to issue notice and proceed to make appropriate orders. [Para 10] * In this case, the record reveals that the Assessing Officer had issued notice, and held proceedings on several dates (of hearing) before proceeding to frame the assessment. The Commissioner took the view that the assessment order disclosed an error, in that the deduction under section 14A had not been made. While the statutory directi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncipal Commissioner set aside the orders of assessment of the assessee for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 on the ground that interest earned by the assessee against fixed deposits was adjusted, i. e., deducted from the value of the inventory and not credited to the profit and loss account and that the orders of assessment had been passed without making any enquiries as to whether the interest earned by the assessee had any nexus with the real estate project, the construction of which was undertaken by the assessee. Thus, according to the Principal Commissioner the assessment orders were erroneous in so far as they were prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Tribunal held that the order of revisions was not valid. On appeal: Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Assessing Officer having received a response to his query about the adjustment of interest against inventory, in the assessment years in question, concluded that there was a nexus between the receipt of funds from investors located abroad and the real estate project, which upon being invested generated interest. Thus, it could not be said that the conclusion arrived by the Assessing Officer, that....