AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] whereby the Assessment Order, dated 18/12/2018, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act was set aside as being erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : "1. In the facts of the case and in Law, the learned PCIT erred in invoking Section 263 to the case of the Appellant only by way of change of opinion, without pointing out any error in the order of the A.O. and also by rejecting detailed submissions made to him from time to time. 2. In the facts of the case and in Law, the Show Cause Notice & or order u/s. 263 alleging errors and prejudice, itself is erroneous on many counts as follows....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amp Duty Value (INR.) Difference INR. 1 Rizwan Khan Flat No.405 57,73,000 60,65,000 2,92,000 2 Habibur Khan Flat No.406 79,31,000 83,32,000 4,01,000 3 Krishnarao Gaikwad Flat No.404 43,35,000 45,53,000 2,18,000 4 KrishnaraoGaikwad Flat No.403 92,10,000 96,64,000 4,54,000 5 Roshan Prasad Flat No.1201 71,28,750 76,93,000 5,64,250 6 Greetika Vashwani Shop No.5 37,52,500 53,97,000 16,44,500 7 Site Nexus Flat No.305 69,25,000 83,32,000 14,07,000 4,50,55,250 5,00,36,000 49,80,750 5. Section 43CA of the Act provides that where actual sale consideration received/accruing as a result of transfer of an asset (oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 of the Act which has been challenged by way of present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced in Paragraph 2 above. 6. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the material on record and have taken into consideration. During the course of hearing the original assessment record were perused and returned in terms of order, dated 03/04/2025. 7. The Assessee has challenged the order passed by the Learned PCIT, inter alia, on the grounds that the Assessing Officer had carried out necessary inquiry and verification and thereafter, passed the Assessment Order, dated 18/12/2018, taking a plausible view. Therefore, the Learned PCIT erred in exercise jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Opposing the afores....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee that the Learned PCIT erred in exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Accordingly, in our view, the order dated, 09/02/2024, passed by the Learned PCIT cannot be quashed as being without jurisdiction. 8. Having concluded as above, we find that before the Learned PCIT it was submitted on behalf of the Assessee that the Assessment Order cannot be regarded as erroneous in relation to 5 out of the 7 sale transactions under consideration were concerned since the provisions contained in Section 43CA of the Act were not applicable to the aforesaid 5 transactions for the reason that the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value did not exceed the threshold of 10% specified in Proviso to Section 43CA o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T-7 (3), Mumbai [ITA Nos. 2266 And 2239/Mum/2022, dated 17/04/2022] in the context of Section 43CA of the Act. We note that the Proviso to Section 43CA of the Act inserted by way of Finance Act, 2018 along with Third Proviso to Section 50(1)(c) of the Act. Both the provisos provided for a tolerance band of 5% which was enhanced to 10% by way of Finance Act, 2021. In the case of Macrotech Developers Ltd. (supra) it was held by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal that the tolerance band of 10% contained in Proviso to Section 43CA of the Act in respect of the difference between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, as amended by the Finance Act 2021, would apply retrospectively Gaurav Investments vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned PCIT in invoking provisions contained in Section 263 of the Act as clearly the applicability of Section 43CA of the Act was required to be examined and the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer has resulted in passing of assessment order which was erroneous as aforesaid. We have already returned a finding that the actual sale agreements were neither requisitioned nor produced during the assessment proceedings. We also reject the contention of the Learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee that the applicability of Section 43CA of the Act is to be examined by aggregating all the transaction. The language of Section 43CA of the Act does not provide for such an approach or interpretation. 11. In view of the above, we hold....