2024 (2) TMI 1603

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....within time, i.e., in view of exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for the purpose of reckoning limitation by the Hon'ble Apex Court per its suo motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, dated 10.01.2022. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a domestic company in the business of testing and analytics, besides producing fertilizers, through it's two units, the Test House Division (STH) and Fertilizer Division (FD) respectively, returned it income for the year on 30.09.2016 at Rs.495.24 lakhs, including current year business loss of Rs.133.67 lakhs and long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs. 628.91 lakhs on sale of STH. Subsequently, assessment was made accepting the assessee's returned LTCG. The relevant discus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., forming part of the sale consideration per the said Agreement, was not included in the computation of capital gain. The same, reserved for certain compliances, was received in the following year, which though would be of no consequence as capital gain is chargeable in the year of 'transfer'. The AO had, not inquiring in the matter, merely accepted the version of the assessee. Adverting to Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) and Raja & Co. vs. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 381 (Ker), wherein it had been held that an incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law would render an order as erroneous, as indeed orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or application of mind. There had been ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... v. CIT [1973] 88 ITR 323 (SC), held that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the AO accepting the same would be subject to sec. 263. The decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, reported at [1992] 198 ITR 611 (Ker), holding the assessment as without application of mind, was, accordingly, affirmed. In Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del), again with reference to judicial precedents, it stands explained that the order of the AO becomes erroneous on a failure to make enquiry where the circumstances call for it. This is not because there is anything wrong in the order if all the facts stated therein are assumed to be correct. However, the AO....