TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ral, Patna is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and is liable to be quashed. 2. For that the order passed is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 3. For that Ld. Pr.CIT, Central, Patna erred in not appreciating that the Capital Gain on the sale of lands was duly disclosed in the case of the company M/s Van Vrindavan Construction Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter as the Company), in which the appellant was a director. The Lands were purchased and sold through its director, the appellant and the source of purchase was paid by the company and the sale consideration was received by the company. Ld. CIT erred in not appreciating the facts even after explanation filed before him. As such the order passed u/s 263 dated 03/12/2020 is perverse, illegal, ab-initio void and fit to be cancelled. 4. For that in any view of the matter, ld. CIT was not justified in passing order u/s 263 on simply change of opinion and only for re-verification. 5. For that other grounds, if any, will be argued/taken up at the time of hearing." 2. Facts in brief are that a search and seizure operation was conducted by the Income Tax Department under Section 132(1) of the Act in the business....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his appeal. During the appellate proceedings before us, the appellant has filed a paper book in which the appellant submitted as under: "The original assessment order was passed u/s 153A/143(3) Dtd. 29.12.2017 (Paper Book pg. No. 1- 5). The same was re-opened vide Order u/s 263 Dtd. 03.12.2020 by PCIT (Central), Patna (Paper Book pg. No. 6-10) on the ground that the assessee had purchased a landed property comprising 79 decimals vide Purchase Deed no. 16343 dated 15.07.2011 (Paper Book pg. No. 13-20) for a consideration of Rs. 8,56,425/- including Stamp Duty and Registration charged (being Rs. 8,00,000/- + 32,000/- + 24,425/-). It was further observed that the said landed property has not been exhibited by the assessee in his relevant books of accounts either in Fixed Asset or Investment as per accounts filed and the return of Income. Besides, the Purchase Deed did not reflect that the purchase was made by the assessee as a Director of the Company because the name of the Company does not appear at any place of the Deed. The appellant appeared before the PCIT on various dates and submitted that the said land was registered in his name on behalf of the company M/s Van Vrindavan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing order u/s 263 on simply change of opinion and only for re-verification and its fit to be cancelled as it is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. For that other grounds, if any, will be argued/taken up at the time of hearing." 8. We have considered the submissions made by the appellant's counsel stated as above and also the impugned order of the ld. PCIT. It is found that the ld. PCIT in his order under Section 263 of the Act dated 03/12/2020 has observed that the assessee had purchased a plot of landed property comprising 79 decimals vide purchase deed No. 16343 dated 15/07/2011 for a consideration of Rs. 8,56,425/- including stamp duty and registration charges during the F.Y. 2011- 12 relevant to A.Y. 2012-13. It was further observed that the said landed property was not shown by the assessee in its books of account either in the 'fixed assets' or 'investments' schedule as per the accounts filed with the return of income for the assessment year under consideration. But the Assessing Officer did not consider the said facts and issue in question and had completed the assessment without taking into account the assessee's un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Van Vrindavan Construction Pvt. Ltd. has shown it as a purchase for the F.Y. 2011-12 as well as in the closing stock and filed its return with the Department on 31/07/2016 u/s 153A. The ld. PCIT, however, did not accept the submission of the assessee stated as above and set aside the said impugned assessment order dated 29/12/2017 and the Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh assessment order considering all the issues raised in the order under Section 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT after taking necessary enquiries in respect of purchase of the said land. The ld. PCIT also invoked Explanation-2 of Section 263 of the Act and also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal Vs CIT (1973) 88 ITR 323 (SC) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the assessment order would become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue in absence of proper enquiries. 9. Aggrieved by the order of ld. PCIT, this appeal has been filed by the assessee before the Tribunal. During the appellate proceedings before us, the assessee, besides filing written subm....