TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1360
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts was not taxed. The above order was subjected to revision u/s 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Coimbatore for the reason that the guideline value of the agricultural lands were not adopted by the assessing officer and has set aside the assessment order with the direction to redo the assessment as per law considering the facts of the case. The above order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax dtd. 27.03.2019 was received by the assessee on 30.03.2019. Since in the original assessment, there was no assessment of capital gains on sale of agricultural lands and as the Principal Commissioner of Income tax has directed to redo the assessment as per law, I was under the impression that even if guideline value is adopted as deemed sale consideration the same would be out of tax net, being the agricultural lands situated beyond the limits contemplated u/s 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. I was also under the impression when the guideline value is substituted for the sale consideration, the purchase value also to be substituted by guideline value in which case there would not be any taxable gain but it would result in loss only. Because of the above fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned cash credit. 2. On verification of the assessment records, it is noticed that the order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 appears to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the following reasons. 2.1 You have sold an immovable property during the year relevant to the assessment year 2014-15 for a sale consideration of Rs.. 3,23,05,500/- to Shri K. Vasudevan and another property to Smt. V. Karpagam for a sale consideration of Rs.. 92,38,900/-. 2.2 On verification of the records and the order u/s. 143(3) dated 22.12.2016, it is seen that the value of the properties are adopted at Rs.. 3,23,500/- and Rs.. 92,38,500/- instead of Rs.. 6,10,99,200/- and Rs.. 1,98,00,000/- respectively. You have registered the property and paid stamp duty for Rs.. 6,10,99,200/- and Rs.. 1,98,00,000/-. As per the provisions of section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the guideline value of Rs.. 6,10,99,200/- and Rs.. 1,98,00,000/- adopted by the registration department was not considered by the Assessing Officer. [ Emphasis given by us] 6. In response to the notice issued by the Ld. PCIT, the assessee has submitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2013 of an amount of Rs.. 3,00,000/- at Punjab National Bank and an amount of Rs.. 1,90,100/- on 19.04.2013 at Axis Bank totaling to Rs.. 4,90,100/-, which were treated as unexplained cash credit by passing assessment order dated 22.12.2016. 10. The Ld. AR pointed out that the Ld. PCIT has interfered with the ibid assessment order on an issue which was not picked up for limited scrutiny i.e., regarding sale of immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs.. 3,23,05,500/- to Shri K. Vasudevan and another property to Smt. V. Karpagam for a sale consideration of Rs.. 92,38,900/-. On this issue, the Ld. PCIT has noted that the value of the properties were adopted at Rs.. 3,23,500/- and Rs.. 92,38,500/- instead of Rs.. 6,10,99,200/- and Rs.. 1,98,00,000/- respectively. Further, the Ld. PCIT noted that the assessee has registered the sale of the aforesaid properties and paid stamp duty for Rs.. 6,10,99,200/- and Rs.. 1,98,00,000/- respectively. According to the Ld. PCIT, as per the provisions of section 50C(1) of the Act, the guideline value of Rs.. 6,10,99,200/- and Rs.. 1,98,00,000/- adopted by the registration department was not considered by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cash deposits made by the assessee, which fact is discernable from perusal of notice issued by AO under section 143(2) of the Act dated 27.07.2016 found placed at page 1 of paper book & first para of assessment order 27.12.2016; and note that the Assessing Officer has carried out detailed enquiry regarding the cash deposits made by the assessee and has made addition to tune of Rs.. 4,90,100/- as unexplained cash credit and thereafter passed the assessment order dated 22.12.2016. Thus we find that Ld PCIT on wrong assumption of fact that assessee's return was selected for complete scrutiny had found fault with the action of AO not enquiring about the sale of agricultural lands in question and proceeded to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. And even though the assessee pointed out to Ld PCIT, that his return was selected for limited scrutiny, and the issue regarding sale of agricultural lands was never a subject matter of scrutiny, and therefore the AO cannot be faulted for not enquiring about it, we note that Ld PCIT didn't bother to address this crucial fact and passed the impugned order, which action cannot be countenanced. 14. As noted, the Ld. PCIT has flagged the impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble High Court has answered the above question of law, by holding as under: 15. The substantial question nos.1 and 2 are interconnected namely, the power of the PCIT under Section 263 of Act and whether he could have set aside the assessment on the ground that the assessing officer did not invoke Section 56(2)(vii)b(ii). The reading of the assessment order shows that the case was selected for limited scrutiny only on this aspect regarding the sale consideration paid by the assessee for purchase of the immovable property and the source of funds. The assessing officer has noted that the sale consideration paid by the assessee was Rs. 41,50,000/- and she has paid stamp duty and other expenses of Rs. 5,75,000/-. The source of funds was verified and the assessing officer was satisfied with the same. The PCIT while invoking his power under Section 263 of Act, faults the assessing officer on the ground that he did not make proper enquiry. It is not clear as to what in the opinion of the PCIT is 'proper enquiry'. By using such expression, it presupposes that the assessing officer did conduct an enquiry. However, in the opinion of the PCIT, the enquiry was not proper in ab....