TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 1345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s under: "Invalid Revision u/s 263: 1. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 without satisfying the conditions u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 2. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in not dropping the proceedings u/s 263 despite the fact that the original order passed by the AO was not erroneous nor was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 3. The learned PCIT erred in fact and in law in not dropping the proceedings u/s 263 despite the fact that issue for which revision proceedings were initiated was settled in favour of the Appellant by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the date of initiating the revision proceedings and also on the date of passing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....losing inventory @ 7% despite the fact that in the case of the Appellant, the annual letting value would be NIL as per provision of section 23(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the grounds of appeal. 3. As transpires from the order of the ld.Pr.CIT, jurisdiction to revise order of the AO passed under section 143(3) was invoked by the ld.Pr.CIT, noting from the assessment record that the assessee being in the business of real estate, had closing stock of completed units, but no income therefrom had been returned in terms of deemed annual letting value (ALV) under section 22 of the Act, to be subjected to tax as Income from house property. As per the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 taxman 342 (Guj) in support of his contention. Several other decisions were also cited before the ld. Pr. CIT. However, the ld.Pr. CIT was not convinced with the explanation of the assessee and held the assessment order erroneous causing prejudice to the Revenue on account of the issue of the taxation of income from completed units of the assessee under section 22 of the Act being not looked into by the AO, considering various decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts as noted by him. He further distinguished the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Neha Builders P.Ltd. (supra) stating that it was rendered in different set of facts, and therefore, was not applicable to the case of the assessee. Accordingly, he set aside the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not "income from house property" as held by the ld.Pr.CIT in the present case. This decision was cited even before the AO during the assessment proceedings, who it was contended by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee had therefore taken a possible view following the decision of jurisdictional High Court, in not subjecting to tax the income from these constructed units under the head "income from house property" under section 22 of the Act. 7. We find merit in the contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee. We have gone through the order of the ld.Pr.CIT, where while rejecting this contention of the assessee made before him, he has distinguished this decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court at para 8.4 and 8.4 of his order. We fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perty". 9. The proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court, admittedly as per the Ld.PCIT also, is that from units of properties held as stock-in-trade, the income earned was assessable under the head "income from business" and not "income from house property. The only relevant fact therefore for applicability of the said proposition is the nature of the property held, whether as stock in trade or otherwise. The distinction noted by the Ld.PCIT however, of the facts before the Hon'ble High Court and that of the present case is that while in the present case before us, the constructed properties are vacant, in the case before the Hon'ble High Court, the property was let out on rent, in both the cases however the properties are h....