TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 767
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nch, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/462/Kol/2023 for the assessment year 2018-19. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to quash the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when it is apparent from the records that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue inasmuch as the same has been passed by the assessing officer without making due and proper enquiry and without verification of the issues raised by the PCIT-1, Kolkata? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Learned Tribunal was justified in law to quash the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rm 3CA with its return of income that an amount of Rs.10,80,71,268/ was actually paid towards sales tax and other taxes creating a provision of disallowance to the tune of Rs. 14,47,32,736/ under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? We have heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned standing counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondent/assessee. The assessment for the year under consideration, AY 2018-19, was a scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme 2019 on various issues and an assessment order dated 22.3.2021 was drawn. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata - 1, [PCIT] invoked his power under Section 263 of the Act and issued show cause notice date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om that, the statute mandates that the PCIT should inquire and be satisfied that the case warrants exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and such satisfaction should be manifest in the show-cause notice which is issued under the said provision. The Tribunal considered the factual position and found that out of the five issues which were raised in the show-cause notice issued under Section 263 of the Act, except for three issues the explanation offered by the assessee in respect of the other issues were accepted by the PCIT. Furthermore, on facts it is clear that the PCIT invoked its jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act at the instance of the Assessing Officer, which was incorrect. In this regard, there are several ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d was acquired for a consideration to Rs.13,56,79,600/- by an agreement to sell dated 6.9.2017 and the deed of conveyance was registered on 29.6.2017, where the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority was Rs.30,00,33,000/- and according to the valuation report the fair market value of the property was Rs.12,75,00,000/-. The land and building was acquired for setting up of a mega industrial unit and the Government of Maharashtra had sanctioned several incentives which includes 100% reimbursement made by the assessee company. Therefore, the assessee had not gained in any manner whatsoever from value of the property at a lower value than the value adopted by the Stamp Duty Authority. Further, it is seen that the property was valued on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... expert on the said subject. Therefore, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the PCIT could not have invoked its power under Section 263 of the Act. Though in the show-cause notice it is alleged that these aspects were not taken into consideration by the Assessing Officer, curiously enough in the order passed under Section 263 of the Act dated 29.3.2023 the PCIT states that the Assessing Officer has not considered these aspects during the course of assessment; he has not made any inquiry on the issue nor did he issue any questionnaire in this regard and also held that the assessee in its reply dated 13.3.2023 did not contradict these facts. This finding rendered by the PCIT in its order dated 29.3.2023 is factually incorrect and....