TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 810
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prevailing in the case and as per provisions of Law it be held that order passed by the PCIT [Central], dated 25/03/2022 is perverse, unlawful, unwarranted and not sustainable in Law. 2. Without prejudice to the Ground No. 1, the Order passed u/s 263 is without considering the detailed submission made by the assessee stating the reasons/explanations in response to hearing notice u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing." Brief facts of the case: 2. The assessee is a builder and engaged in the business of construction. The assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 11/10/2017 declaring to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the issue of Interest on TDS. Accordingly the, order u/s. 263 is upheld qua TDS claim of Rs. 10,34,119/- and Interest on TDS. 5. The other issue on which the Ld.Pr.CIT has invoked Section 263 is that according to the Ld.Pr.CIT the Annual Letting Value of completed stock of Project Elmwood should have been added to the income of the assessee in the light of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing and Finance 354 ITR 180. Ld.Pr.CIT is of the opinion that the AO has not examined this issue. It is observed that the year under consideration is A.Y. 2017-18. 6. The assessee had filed copies of B/S and P&L A/c during the assessment proceedings. The assessee had shown closing stock. Thus during the assessment proceed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds certain Tribunal decisions including Cosmopolis Construction v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 230 & 231 (PUN) of 2018, dated 12-9-2018], wherein, after taking note of both the above judgments and finding none of them from the jurisdictional High Court, a view has been canvassed in favour of the assessee by holding that no income from house property can result in respect of unsold flats held by a builder at the year end. Similar view has been reiterated by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in Mahanagar Construction v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 623 (PUN) of 2018, dated 5-9-2019]. 12. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the Finance Act, 2017 has inserted sub-section (5) of section 23 w.e.f. 1-4-2018 reading as under:- 'Where the property ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....Y. 2018-19. Instantly, we are concerned with the assessment year 2013-14. As such, the amendment cannot apply to the year under consideration. In the absence of the applicability of such an amendment, no income can be said to have accrued to the assessee from unsold flats available as stock-in-trade. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order on this score and delete the addition of Rs. 1.47 crore sustained in the first appeal." Unquote 7.1 Thus, there is no doubt that there were two views on this impugned issue. 7.2 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amitabh Bachchan, 384 ITR 200(SC) observed as under : "21. There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the purpose of business." The PCIT therefore agrees that the Assessing Officer has recorded from the details submitted by respondent and the explanation given by respondent that the assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment has been made and also there was a business income to the assessee from the same. He notes that the Assessing Officer, therefore did not consider the calculation of disallowance under section 14A the interest expense debited by the assessee because the same has been incurred for the purpose of business. The PCIT though was unhappy with the view of the Assessing Officer, the PCIT himself does not say why it should have been considered for the calculation of disallowance under section 14....