2019 (8) TMI 1931

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ead as under : 1. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-21, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as "Pr.CIT") dated 28.02.2019 is bad in law, as the Pr. CIT has wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act. Hence the order dated 28.02.2019 may kindly be set aside. 2. On the facts &. circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr. CIT has erred in concluding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The appellant prays that the conclusion reached by the Pr. CIT is erroneous and contrary to the facts of the case. Hence the order dated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....development and redevelopment of house property in the name and style of M/s Shree Bal Developers and M/s Shree Bal Land Developers. The Pr. CIT, on perusal of the balance sheet of Shree Bal Land Developers observed that the assessee had two unsold flats at Kapil Tranquil amounting to Rs. 2,06,78,345/-. Further, the Pr. CIT observed that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s Ansal Housing Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd., the unsold inventory shall be liable to be assessed as income from house property. Therefore, he held that the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of Explanation 2 to section 263(1) of the Act. C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Court has held that "where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of revenue". A perusal of the above two decisions clearly indicates that two views are possible on the above issue and the AO has taken one view, which may not be treated as an order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6.1 In the case of M/s Classique Associates Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, after discussing the decision in Neha Builders (P.) Ltd. (supra) and Chennai Properties & Investment Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 377 ITR 673 (SC) observed as under : "8. True it is, that income derived from the property would always be termed as....