2023 (6) TMI 1133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appeal. 2. According to Mr Abhishek Maratha, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of 63 days. 3. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 4. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. CM Appl.28781/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in filing the appeal.] 5. This is an application moved on behalf of the appellant/revenue, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 6. According to Mr Maratha, there is a delay of 08 days. 7. For the reasons given in the application, the delay is condoned. 8. The application is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. ITA 308/2023 9. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aspect had not been inquired into. 12. It is not disputed that the stamp duty value of the subject land was pegged at Rs. 387,64,76,000/-, whereas the value which was taken into account was Rs. 272,29,08,000/-. Thus, according to the PCIT, there had been under-assessment of income to the extent of the differential amount i.e., Rs. 115,35,68,000/-. 12.1 It is in this context that the PCIT via order dated 30.03.2019 concluded that the assessment order dated 08.12.2016 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act was both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, the assessment order was set aside by the PCIT via the order dated 30.03.2019. 13. Being aggrieved, the respondent/assessee preferred an appeal with the Tribunal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....avour of VGN for an amount equivalent to Rs. 272,29,08,000/-. 14. The record also discloses that the AO, while framing the scrutiny assessment had, in fact, issued a notice dated 22.02.2016, wherein queries were raised with regard to the sale of the subject land. This aspect of the matter has been recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 15 of the impugned order. 15. As would be evident, the PCIT concluded that there was under-assessment by virtue of the fact that the valuation that had been placed by the concerned authority for affixation of stamp duty was higher. As noted above, the value for the purpose of stamping was pegged at Rs. 387,64,76,000/- 16. The record, thus, reveals that it was not the respondent/assessee who effectuated the ....