TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961 and has erred in holding the assessment order dated 29-12-2016 as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding as under while passing the impugned order. * That exemption/s 54B to the assessee was not to be allowed on investment in agricultural lands purchased after the due date of filing the return for the year. * That exemption U/S 54F for investment in residential property was not to be allowed because the plot purchased was industrial plot and the valuation report is fabricated document. 3. That having regard to facts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....information has been received that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 44,00,000/- in his Saving Bank account during the F.Y. 2008-09 relevant to A.Y. 2009-10. To verify the transaction, query letters were issued to the assessee to furnish particulars of his PAN, Income Tax Assessment, filing of ITR for A.Y. 2009-10 etc. and to explain as to how the said transaction has been disclosed/shown by the assessee in ITR. Despite service of query letter, reply to the said query letter had not been furnished and the assessee has failed to furnish any plausible explanation to the said transaction. Further, information regarding details of transactions as well as assessee was collected from the AIR filer. Since, the assessee has not complied with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l land at nil by giving the relevant computations. The assessment order was subject to order under section 263 of the Act. Ld. PCIT after discussing the issue concluded as under :- " In view of the above discussion, it is found that the order passed by the AO is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the following counts :- a) Exemption to the assessee was not to be allowed on investment in agricultural lands for Rs. 6,35,000/-, Rs. 11,48,500/- & Rs. 5,83,000/- purchased after the due date of filing the return for the year, whereas the AO allowed the exemption u/s 54B. b) Exemption u/s 54F for investment in residential property was not be allowed because actually the plot purchased was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....); (ii) Sh. Paramjit Singh vs. PCIT - ITA No.446/2022 dated 01.12.2023 (Del.); (iii) Smt. Daya Rani vs. PCIT - ITA No.402/2021 dated 20.02.2024 (Del.); (iv) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. CIT (2011) 336 ITR 0136 (Del.); (v) CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. - (2011) 331 ITR 0236 (Bom.). 8. Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order of PCIT. 9. Upon careful consideration, we note that the assessee's case was reopened to examine the cash deposited in the bank account of Rs. 44,00,000/-. In the assessment order, Assessing Officer enquired this aspect and was satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. In these circumstances, when the Assessing Officer has not made addition on the issu....