TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 39
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as law on the subject, the revision order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3 under Section 263 of the Act fir assessment year 2015-16 without giving proper opportunity of being heard is erroneous, contrary to law, equity, facts and circumstances of the present case and the material available on record. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-3 erred in passing order under section 263 of the Act when order passed by Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Principal Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee. As per information called from the Sub-registrar, Daskroi, the value of aforesaid property has been determined at Rs. 3,51,20,600/- as against documented price of Rs. 2,75,00,000/-. The PCIT was of the view that as per the provisions of Section 56(2)(vi) of the Act, the stamp duty value of the property has to be taken and the balance amount is chargeable to tax in the hands of the purchasers. Accordingly, the share of assessee as per the value determined by Stamp valuation authority is taken at Rs. 70,24,120/- and the difference amount of Rs. 14,24,120/- (Rs. 70,24,120/- - Rs. 55,00,000/-) is chargeable to tax as deemed income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Further, the PCIT also observed that the assessee had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 263 of the Act and further, hard copy of the order was also not served on the assessee. Further, the assessee submitted that notably 263 order and the consequential order was passed against the assessee ex-parte and, therefore, it is quite apparent that the assessee was not aware about passing of 263 order and also did not know about the consequential order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 263 read with Section 144 of the Act. It was only later when the assessee received a message asking him to pay outstanding tax demand, the assessee approached his Tax Consultant and, thereafter, on the advice the assessee immediately filed appeal before the ITAT on 27.07.2022. Accordingly, it was submitted that the delay was genuine and for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the very basis of initiating proceedings under Section 263 of the Act are on an incorrect understanding of facts of the assessee's case. Further, the aforesaid agreement was placed on record during the course of original assessment proceedings and, therefore, neither it is a case where inadequate enquiry was made by the Assessing Officer nor is it a case where there has been incorrect application of law by the Assessing Officer. Regarding source of investments, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to page no.8 of the Paper Book and submitted that the assessee vide submission dated 24.11.2017 had submitted the particulars of property purchased during the year under consideration. The Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ale itself, therefore, it is evident that looking into the instant facts which have been highlighted above, the PCIT has initiated Section 263 proceedings on an incorrect presumption of facts, the PCIT has failed to observe that substantial payment for payment of properties was made in the year 2010 and, therefore, Jantri Value of Financial Year 2014-15 could not be applied in the instant facts. The cash component with respect to purchaser of property finds specific mention in the agreement for sale itself, all properties referred to by the Ld. PCIT in the Section 263 order were forming part of books of account of the assessee, which had been submitted before the Assessing Officer for his kind consideration. Evidently, the purchase deeds in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onsideration the fact that substantial payment in respect of the above properties were made in the year 2010 and, therefore, it was not analyzed whether the Jantri Value of Financial Year 2014-15 should be taken for the purpose of invoking Section 263 of the Act and further so far as cash component in respect of above property is concerned, evidently it is forming part of the purchase deed itself which was submitted before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. 10. In case of PCIT vs. Ram Chandra, 155 Taxmann.com 431 (Guj) the Hon'ble High Court held that :- "Where assessee in response to inquiries made by Assessing Officer about purchases and commission paid to parties had furnished bank statement, t....