TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 is illegal, invalid and bad in law. 2. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 ought to have considered order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B by the assessing officer NeFAC and all the issued were discussed and considered at the time of assessment proceedings and addition were made at Rs. 14,11,133/- u/s. 69 as unexplained investment and the appeal is pending before National Faceless Appeal Centre, therefore, again re- examine on same issue is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 3. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur-2 ought to have considered order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B by the assessing officer NeFAC is neither erroneous and nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and appeal p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 and setting asides the assessment framed 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore order passed is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 9. The appellant seeks permission to add any other ground of appeal or amend or alter the aforesaid ground of appeal." 3. Facts in brief are that, initially, the assessee did not file his return of income. The assessment was originally framed and the case was re-opened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). Notice was issued under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 1,19,79,000, and the said transaction has not been shown by the assessee in his return of income for the year under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22/03/2024, in response to which assessee filed written submissions electronically on 27/03/2024. Following submissions were made by the assessee:- "1) The assessee strongly objected to revision proceedings initiated u/s263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. ii) The difference in the market value (Rs.1,02,85,000/-) and sales consideration (Rs. 16,94,000/-) is 14.1% which is less than 15% which is nominal and that the same be considered. The assessee stated that in view of this he had objection in treating Rs. 5,64.666/-, as income from other sources as per the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act. The assessee also relied on the following judgements stating that in these it was held that the difference of 10% to 15% is nominal d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....considered by the NaFAC and addition of Rs. 14,11,133/- was only treated as unexplained investment without accepting his contention that payment was made from agricultural land sold at Rs. 27,36,866/-. The assessee further stated that the entire stamp duty and registration charges were paid by Keshav Ashtankar and himself. v) The assessee submitted that the AO NaFAC has passed the order after considering all the aspects of the case, then again the same can't be ropened u/s363 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 5. The learned PCIT considering the submissions of the assessee set aside the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. While doing so, the learned PCIT observed as under:- "7. I have carefully co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in the Paper Book at Page-8, which is reproduced below:- "ANNEXURE 1. Please provide computation of income for A.Y.2016-17. 2. Provide 26AS details for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. 3. Please furnish all bank statement for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2016. 4. During the year under consideration, you have purchased an immovable property for a total consideration of Rs. 1,19,79,000/-. As per provisions of sec.56(2)(vii)(b), you have liable to pay taxes on the difference amount between the actual sale consideration and the fair market value. Please furnish the copy of challan of taxes paid, if any. 5. Please furnish the copy of purchase deed of the said property. 6. Please furnish the source of investment in the said ....