TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 127
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn of income for the impugned assessment year 2017-2018 on 21.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 1,08,500/-. The assessment has been subsequently reopened u/sec.147 of the Act, on the basis of the reasons recorded for reopening, as per which, information available with the Department shows that the assessee had entered into an agreement of sale for purchase of commercial space at "Sarath City Capital Mall", Kondapur for a consideration of Rs. 75,67,000/- and paid entire amount, out of the above Rs. 59,22,000/- paid in cash. Accordingly, notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income on 19.05.2021 declaring total income at Rs. 1,08,500/-. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In response to the show cause notice, assessee submitted that, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not prejudice to the interest of revenue because, the Assessing Officer has considered the issue of purchase of property and after considering relevant facts has made addition towards unexplained investment in purchase of property as per the sale deed and, therefore, the observation of the PCIT that the Assessing Officer has not considered the issue is incorrect. The PCIT after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, set-aside the assessment order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to re-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Assessing Officer. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in the case of JVR Retails Private Ltd., vs., DCIT, ITA.No.175/Hyd./2021 order dated 31.01.2023; Judgments of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the cases of CIT vs., Usha Martin Ventures Ltd., 150 taxmann.com 491 (Cal.) (HC) and PCIT vs., Usha Polychem India (P.) Ltd., 149 taxmann.com 240 (Cal.) (HC). 6. MS. M. Narmada, learned CIT-DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned PCIT submitted that, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which is evident from the facts brought on record by the PCIT where it is very clear that, although, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t-aside the assessment order. In the present case, the PCIT has set-aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act as erroneous, because as per the insight portal information, the assessee had purchased two properties at "Sarath City Mall". However, while completing the assessment u/sec.147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer had considered only one sale deed and made addition u/sec.69 of the Act. Although, another sale deed was available with the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment and there is an unexplained investment of Rs. 19 lakhs for purchase of property, the Assessing Officer failed to examine the issue in light of relevant evidences available during the course of assessment pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the reasons given by the PCIT to set-aside the assessment order by exercising powers conferred u/sec.263 of the Act. This view is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of Virbhadra Singh (HUF) vs., PCIT (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that "where no inquiry was conducted by Assessing officer in passing assessment order after accepting explanation furnished by the assessee, then, Commissioner was well within his power under section 263 to direct fresh assessment". This view is also supported by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., vs., CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and CIT vs., Paville Projects Pvt. Ltd., [2023] 453 ITR 447 (SC); wherein it has ....