TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uploaded on 16/01/2024 which is placed on record. The reply submitted by the assessee is considered, but found not acceptable for the detailed reasons mentioned hereunder. (a) The assessee in its submission has stated that "Notice under Section 263 is prima facie bad in law, since Assessing Officer was well aware that Valuation Report from DVO has not been received till the date of Assessment Order and construction cost has been assessed based on the books of account subject to rectification under Section 154 of Income Tax Act. In other words, there is no errors in the Assessment order, since all the facts were on the record and were considered before passing the Assessment Order and therefore, the basic element to invoke the provision of Section 263 of Income Tax Act is absent, since there is no error and therefore it cannot be treated as pre-judicial in the interest of revenue.". The objection of the assessee is not acceptable in view of the explanation 1(b) to the section 263, which define the record as under; "Record" shall include and shall be deemed always to have included all records relating to any proceeding under this act available at the time of examination by the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relevant and material bearing on the assessment to be made and the result of such proceeding was not available with the Income-tax officer before the completion of the assessment, but the result came subsequently, the revising authority is entitled to look into such material as it forms part of the assessment records of the particular assessment year". Considering the above decisions of the courts, the submission of the assessee is not acceptable. The order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (b) Further the assessee in its submission has stated that "the valuation stated is mentioned in the valuation report as Rs. 3,73,14,000/-, till the time of visit assessee has incurred the expenses on building construction upto 31st March 2020 is Rs. 4,07,98,516.88/-, which is higher than that of final valuation report. In view of the same, the foundation of issuance of notice itself is defeated and notice requires to be withdrawn on this ground alone." The submission of the assessee is not acceptable as the assessment year under consideration is A.Y.2018-19 and as per the valuation of building shown by the assessee in his return of inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uation on that at Rs. 3,73,14,000/-, whereas the assessee in his submission is referring to the valuation of the building as on 31-03-2020 at Rs. 4,07,98,516. The value of the building as on 31-03-2020 is not relevant for the assessment year under consideration. (e) Lastly, the assessee has submitted that "I would like to draw your kind attention on the Para 5 & last para of the assessment order dtd 30.09.2021 that when all the details are available, provision under Section 154 to be invoked, if required. Therefore, The notice under Section 263 of Income Tax Act 1961 will not be sustainable and tenable in law on this ground as well as valuation as per books of account if Rs. 4,07,98,516.88/- as against reflected in the valuation report by independent valuer at Rs. 3,73,14,000/-." The Contention of the assessee is not acceptable as already pointed out in the above paras on the basis of various court's decision including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Commissioner would be justified in invoking section 263 on the basis of valuation report submitted by DVO subsequent to assessment order. As such the order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudici....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....od of "six months from the end of the month in which the reference is made under sub-section (1)", and the same could not have been acted upon so as to result in the corresponding addition to be made in assessee's hands. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the legislature has used statutory expression "shall" in section 142A(6) of the Act which implies that it is a mandatory provision than a directory one and, therefore, we ought to follow (2024) 159 taxmann.com 247 (Raipur - Trib.) Shree Krishna Colonisers vs. PCIT, (2023) 156 taxmann.com 511 (Amritsar - Trib.) Golden Tulip Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT and ITA No.2415/Hyd/2018 dated 05.09.2019 Shri Zulfi Revdjee vs. ACIT to hold it as time barred in very terms. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee's instant first and foremost argument and find it to be devoid of merits. We make it clear that not only section 153, Explanation 1(v) excludes the time spent between the date of section 142A reference and submission of the consequential valuation report in such a case but also the CBDT Circular No.15 dated 21.01.2015 makes it clear in para 43.2 that there is no time limit for furnishing of the report by ....