2025 (5) TMI 1559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rd. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Ahmedabad-1 (for short "Assessing Officer - A.O.")- has erred in passing the order u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act wherein there was no error in the order passed by the assessing authority u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2017-18 the assessing officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi added income of Rs. 51,14,000/-, 2. The Lrd. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Ahmedabad-1 has grievously erred in law in non-accepted the assessment order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B by the National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi and erroneously exercised powers u/s. 263 of the Income Tax Act added amount of Rs. 51,14,000/- in return of income.3. 3. The L....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... before passing the order. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, withdraw or amend any of the grounds of appeal and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the hearing of this appeal so as to enable the Hon'ble ITAT to decide this appeal according to law." 3. The return of income for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18 was filed on 04.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 26,34,830/-. The case was reopened and notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2021. The order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act has been passed on 26.03.2022 determining total income at Rs. 26,34,830/- by accepting the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sh Assessment Oder. 4. The assessee was aggrieved by the order under Section 263 of the Act and thus filed the present appeal. 5. There is a delay of 49 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has filed condonation of delay application thereby explaining that local Consultant of the assessee was not aware about further proceedings against the order passed by the PCIT and kept the order for almost 4 months. The reason appears to be genuine and hence the delay is condoned in filing the present appeal. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the PCIT rejected all the documents and evidences presented before the Assessing Officer and has not taken cognizance of the said documents during the proceedings under Section 263 of the Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that the invocation of Section 263 of the Act is not justifiable. 7. The ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer should have asked the details of the amount paid by the assessee at the time of booking of property purchase. But, the purchase of immovable property over and above the document value during the year under consideration was not at all asked by the Assessing Officer and hence the Assessment Order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and is erroneous. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the PCIT passed under Section 263 of the Act. 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee, at the time of assessment, has given the detail....