TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee is an individual, deriving income from other sources. For the Assessment Year 2011-12, the assessee filed its Return of Income manually on 31.03.2012, declaring total income of Rs. 56,00,004/ The assessee purchased an immovable property vide sale deed No. 6279 dated 01.04.2010 jointly with one Shri Asit Bharatbhai Shah for a total consideration of Rs. 81,00,000/- and the stamp duty valuation was Rs. 96,69,600/-. The entire sale consideration of Rs. 81,00,000/- was paid by Shri Asit Bharatbhai Shah (co-owner). 2.1. The assessee case was reopened u/s. 147 on the ground that the assessee has not filed Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2011-12 wherein the assessee purchased the immovable property worth of Rs. 81,00,000/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....andlord. Thus the reassessment order neither erroneous nor pre judicial to the interest of Revenue and no question invoking provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, therefore requested to drop the revision proceeding. The assessee also produced before the Ld. PCIT the copy of the Cancellation Deed dated 26.02.2013. 2.3 However, the Ld. Pr.CIT passed the impugned order which reads as follows: 4.1 The reply filed by the assessee has been perused. The submissions of the assessee may be acceptable subject to detailed examination and cross verification of relevant documents, if his contentions are found duly substantiated. Therefore, the same may be examined by the Assessing Officer and necessary enquiries and verification may be condu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llation deed before the Assessing Officer while passing the reassessment order dated 21.12.2018. Therefore the assessing officer has not invoked the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Thus the order passed by the A.O. is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore the revision order is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, the Ld. D.R. Shri A.P. Singh appearing for the Revenue supported the Revision order passed by the Ld. PCIT. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. The assessee filed its original Return of Income manually on 31.03.2012 and pursuant to 148 notice the assessee filed his Return of Income by e-filing on 07.06.2018 and also disc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. vs. CIT reported in 243 ITR 83 held as follows: "A bare reading of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent-if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-recourse cannot be had to section....