TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 169
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om the orders passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "AO") u/s. 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Facts of the case: 2. The assessee, a Non-resident Individual, filed her returns of income and the case(s) for A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2017-18 were reopened and the reassessments were completed by accepting the returned income as detailed below: Sr Particulars A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2017-18 1 Date of filing Return of Income 25-07-2015 01-07-2017 2 Total Income Declared Rs. 1,66,820/- Rs. 2,64,900/- 3 Date of Notice u/s 143(2) of the Act 21-06-2021 23-06-2021 4 Date of Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act NIL 30-12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the Kalhaar Blues and Greens project. While the AO alleged the possibility of undisclosed payments, the assessee maintained that the entire consideration as per the Sale Deed had been fully disclosed. 2.3. The assessee further contended that the investment in the property was scrutinized in the original assessment proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act for AY 2016-17, wherein the AO accepted the investment as declared. The assessee argued that documents found during a search operation did not directly mention the assessee's name, nor did they establish any direct connection between the assessee and the third-party information. The assessee requested clarification on the names of the individuals against whom the search was conduct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected to the notices and stated that the Ld.PCIT has not given any details of information received, its analysis and independent inquiry. The assessee also stated that during the reassessment proceedings the AO has already conducted the inquiry about the impugned issue and completed the reassessment. The assessee also argued that where two views are possible and one view is adopted by the AO, then existence of other possible view alone would not be sufficient to assume jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. Additionally, without prejudice to her contentions, the assessee submitted the details of deed of conveyance, details of payments made by way of purchase consideration, copy of bank account passbook and confirmation from the developer (NODPL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e held to be unjustified, unwarranted and may please be quashed. 4. The Appellant craves leave to add to, amend or to raise any further ground(s) of appeal, as the case may arise. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee took us through the notices issued by the AO during the course of re-assessment proceedings and submissions made in response thereto. The Ld.AR argued that the purchase was legitimate and supported by a registered-deed and banking documents. The Ld.AR also stated that the unit was initially booked by a third party, Shri Ajay Mittal, who later cancelled the booking and the excel sheet cited by the Department pertained to transactions between NODPL and Shri ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the other hand, the Ld.Departmental Representative (DR), relied on the order of the Ld.PCIT and also stated that the since the AO has failed in conducting the inquiry, the order passed by him is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Ld.DR placed reliance on the decision of ITAT Rajkot Bench in case of Prakashbhai Ishwarbhai Changela Vs. PCIT, Rajkot in ITA No.46 & 47/Rjt/2022 dated 10-04-2024. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is well-settled law that for invoking Section 263 of the Act, the Ld.PCIT must demonstrate that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The primary reason cited by the Ld.PCIT for invoking Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....found no direct evidence implicating the assessee. Therefore, unlike in the case of Prakashbhai Ishwarbhai Changela (supra), the AO's assessment in the present case was based on a proper examination of all relevant facts and documents, and there were no contradictory explanations that warranted further inquiry. 7.1. The facts of the present case are more akin to the decision in Divyesh Bhupendra Desai Vs. PCIT (supra), where the Tribunal held that when the AO has taken a plausible view based on inquiry and material on record, the invocation of Section 263 of the Act is unwarranted. The Co-ordinate Bench relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia Vs. PCIT (Tax Appeal No. 20 of 2024), where the Ho....