TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (3) TMI 533
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... the impugned assessment order must be erroneous and that error must be prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the present case, Id. AO has passed the reasoned assessment order after analyzing all details and therefore there was no error in the impugned assessment order so as to justify action u/s.263 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the very assumption of power u/s.263 of the Act is unjustified and bad in law and therefore, order u/s.263 of the Act deserves to be quashed. 3. The subject order u/s. 263 passed by Id. PCIT is illegal and bad in law in the absence of any finding of the Id. PCIT as to how the alleged error of the AO has resulted in loss of revenue particularly when share in common areas is not to be considered for the purposes of S.43CA r.w.s.50C of the Act. 4. The Id. PCIT has further erred in law in not coming to any concrete conclusion and without conducting any inquiry or investigating the issue, merely directed the AO to frame the assessment order afresh. Without there being any positive finding about order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, the action of Id. PCIT is without jurisdiction and illegal and hence deserve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relation to the properties sold with respect to: * Date of conveyance deed * Dastavej number * Name of purchasers * Sale consideration as per conveyance deed * Jantri value as per stamp duty authority * Stamp duty payable as per stamp duty authority * Stamp duty actually paid by the assessee * Whether sale consideration is lower than jantri value * Difference between sale consideration and jantri value He pointed out that the above detail was duly evidenced with Jantri value report of all 27 properties placed before us at P.B 216- 275. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that with all facts placed before the Ld. PCIT duly evidenced with necessary documents, and the facts - clearly showing the sale consideration to be in excess of jantri value of the properties sold, there was clearly no error in the order of the AO having accepted the actual sale consideration and not substituting it with the jantri value in terms of section 43CA of the Act. 7. Next he pointed out that the Ld. PCIT found the provisions of section 43CA invokable by appreciating the facts relating to sale of one property only, that too incorrectly. 8. He drew our attention to para 3.1 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been applied for the total area of 299.86 sq. mtrs. with the notes that spot inspection had not been made and descriptive valuation has been estimated as per sale deed details. Thus, there is a difference in the area mentioned in the sale deed (total area 379.81 sq.meters (carpet area) + 176.00 sq. mtr. of common & undivided share ) totaling to 555.81 sq. mtrs. Thus, the stamp duty valuation authority has not considered the full area sold by the assessee. If the full area of 555.81 sq. mtr. is considered and the rate of Rs. 20,000/- is applied, then the corrct stamp duty valuation would be Rs.1,11,16,200/- on which the assessee would be liable to pay the stamp duty of Rs.5,44,694/-. 3.2 Further, the undersigned has visited the Jantrl Table for the area falling in T.P. Scheme No. 9 (Rajpur-Hirpur) which showed consolidated valuation in respect of entire T.P. scheme for residential as well as commercial area. The screen shot of this webpage has been downloaded and is pasted as under:- As per this Jantri Table, the rate for offices has been fixed at Rs. 20,000/- per sq. mtr. whereas for the shops, the same has been fixed at Rs. 31,250/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, the valuation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nted out that this finding of fallacy in the stamp duty valuation by the ld.Pr.CIT of the area sold by the assessee was not correct. He pointed out that it had been explained to the ld.Pr.CIT that the stamp duty valuation had been done on the entire property sold and 299.86 sq.meters related only to second floor and floor above the second floor for which stamp duty valuation was done separately, while for the ground floor and the cellar separate stamp duty valuation has been done. Copies of both valuation certificate had also been filed to the ld.Pr.CIT. In this regard, he drew our attention to the reply filed to the ld.Pr.CIT placed before us at PB Page No.110-201, more particularly, point no.7 of the reply, where the assessee had submitted complete details and evidence of the sale transaction in respect of Rajkumar Varadmal Budhani as under: "7. The Appellant Company has also provided all the facilities for easy movement of goods and many of its customers have preferred to purchase Offices and Godowns on all the floors. Whereas in some cases, there are individual buyers for individual godowns/offices in each floor, we are giving working for one of the sale transaction in the ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and obtain a fair opinion as to whether there was mistake crept in arriving at the valuation of Rs. 58,53,300/- for the area of 299.860 sq.mtrs. for the property sold through registered sale deed no.2892 and other sale deeds executed after ascertaining from the concerned authorities of the Stamp Duty Office having jurisdiction over the properties located in T.P. Scheme No.9 Rahoyr Hirpur). (3) After receiving such clarification from the Stamp Duty Office, the AO. shall decide the fair market value as per the provisions of section 43CA of the Act and for that purpose, all due opportunities shall be provided to the assessee before deciding the issue against it. (4) If the A.O. feels it necessary, he may make the reference to Valuation Cell for determining the fair market value of the entire project as it must have been completed by this time and all the units of Sharnam-4 must have been sold and adopt the higher value as per the provisions of section 43CA r.w.s. 50C of the Act. (5) The A.O. shall pass the assessment order de-novo after taking into all the above-referred material together with the details and documents already made available during the course of assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contentions of both the parties, carefully gone through the order of the Ld.PCIT and also the various documents referred to before us. On a careful consideration of all the above we are in complete agreement with the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that the Ld.PCIT has failed to make out a case of any error in the order of the AO warranting exercise of revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act. 19. The error noted by the ld.Pr.CIT in the assessment order is that the sale of properties by the assessee during the year was not examined by the AO vis-à-vis its stamp duty value for the purpose of invoking section 43CA of the Act, which requires the sale consideration to be substituted with the stamp duty value when the same exceeds the actual sale consideration. 20. We have noted that the ld.Pr.CIT has not pointed out any instance where actual sale consideration of the property sold needed to be substituted with the stamp duty value in terms of section 43CA of the Act, despite the fact that details of all 27 properties were filed by the assessee to him clearly pointing out that in no case the stamp duty value exceeded actual sale consideration and all documents to evidence the same w....