TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in nature; 1.2.2 Order could not be held as erroneous under section 263 of the Act simply because according to the Ld. PCIT, the Ld. AO should have made a certain addition; 1.2.3 Once the Ld. AO has taken one of the permissible views on the basis of the enquiry, order cannot be said to be erroneous merely because the Ld. PCIT entertains a different opinion in the matter; 1.2.4 order passed by the Ld. AO ought not have been held as 'erroneous' and 'prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the twin conditions stated under section 263 of the Act are not fulfilled; and 1.2.5 the subject matter of revisionary proceedings did not form part of limited scrutiny proceedings and the assessment order could not have been held to be 'erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue when the Ld. AO could not have travelled beyond the issues forming subject matter of the 'limited scrutiny. 1.3 The Appellant prays that order passed under section 263 of the Act to be struck down as null and void ab initio. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND 1: GROUND 2: THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO UNDER SECTION 143(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e year. During the year, assessee had purchased an immovable residential property on 30.11.2017 alongwith his wife and son for a consideration of Rs. 4,75,03,000/-, the stamp duty valuation of the same for the purposes of section 50C was Rs. 5,82,27,385/-. Based on these figures, it can be worked out that there was a gap of 22.58% between the stamp duty valuation and purchase value of the property. 3. In the property mentioned (supra), the share of the assessee was 50% and rest of the share belongs to his wife and son. In the case of the assessee, the Ld. PCIT issued a notice u/s. 263 of the Act on the ground that the order passed by the AO mentioned (supra) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue vide dated 15.02.2024. The copy of notice issued is reproduced herein below for factual reference as under:- "Subject: Notice for Hearing in respect of Revision proceedings u/s 263 of THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961-Assessment Year 2018-19, In this regard, a hearing in the matter is fixed on 22/02/2024 at 12:00 PM. You are requested to attend in person or through an authorized representative to submit your representation, if any alongwith supporting docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessment order dated 08.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) is set aside de-novo on specific issue as outlined in above para 5.1 with a direction to cause adequate and effective enquiry. The AO is directed to provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee to provide documents and evidences which it may choose to rely upon for substantiating its own claim. The AO is accordingly directed to examine the variation between the stamp duty value and value as per DVO report of the property, considering these documents and any other evidence as required and take necessary action. Thereafter, a fresh order may be passed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The assessee being aggrieved with this order of the Ld. PCIT preferred an appeal before us. 5. We have gone through the order of the AO passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act, notice issued u/s. 263 of the Act and order passed thereon. It is observed that the stamp duty valuation of the property may be Rs. 5,82,27,385/- against the purchased price of Rs. 4,75,03,000/- but fare market value as determined by the District Valuation Officer (DVO) was Rs. 5,03,83,000/-. This valuation by the DVO was carried out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her electronic mode as may be prescribed, on or before the date of the agreement for transfer:] Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and ten per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where- (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer; (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect". The net effect of this judgment is that if a fresh benefit is provided by the Parliament in an existing provision, then such an amendment should be given retrospective effect." 8. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in Vatika Township (P.) Ltd. (supra) the benefit granted by 3rd proviso to section 50C (1) is applicable in the case of assessee also, which is again reproduced herein below as under: "Provided also that where the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority does not exceed one hundred and ten per cent of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer, the consideration so received or accruing as a result of the transfer shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration." 9. Assessee's purchase price and market value does not exceed in this case more than 10% hence no addition can be made. Our view is being fortified by following judicial pronouncements of coordinate benches/Hon'ble High Courts:- [2022] 144 taxmann.com 168 (Pune - Trib.) Sai Bhargavanath Infra v. ACIT....