2026 (4) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee is in the business of builders and developers and filled return of income on 29.11.2015, showing loss of Rs. 5,91,33,210/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 23.12.2017 accepting the returned loss. Subsequently the assessment was reopened in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd and the judgment of the ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Emitici Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT that the assessee has finished goods in the form of unsold inventory at Rs. 54,26,49,021/-, but has not offered house property income on the above unsold inventory. The reasons recorded clearly state that the assessee had not offered house property income on the unsold inventory and ther....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Thereafter notice u/s 142(1) dated 07.12.2021 requesting the assessee to furnish detailed documentary evidences to verify the alleged transactions. The assessee requested for reasons for reopening which has been provided in due course. The assessee furnished detail documentary evidences in support of claim which were duly considered. On 10.12.2021 the assessee raised objection on certain issues against reopening of the case. Rebuttal of the same was duly issued. Order u/s 143(3)/147 read with section 144B of the I.T Act 1961. " 3. The PCIT on perusal of assessment order has found the order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue within the meaning of provisions of section 263 of the IT Act as the Assessing Officer h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Gundecha Builders [(2019) 102 taxmann.com 27 (Bom)] and CIT vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises[(2015) 58 Taxmann.com 111 (Bombay)] to submit that the issue of notional ALV on unsold flats is a legally examinable issue and failure of the Assessing Officer to examine the same renders the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The legal position governing exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 263 is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (243 ITR 83) has held that the Commissioner can revise an order only when the twin cond....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. AR that issuance of notice u/s 142(1) raises a presumption of application of mind is not acceptable in the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises vs. Addl. CIT (99 ITR 375) has held that failure to make enquiries which are called for renders the order erroneous. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rampyari Devi Saraogi vs. CIT (67 ITR 84) and Tara Devi Aggarwal vs. CIT (88 ITR 323). Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan (384 ITR 200) has held that where the Assessing Officer has not made proper enquiry, the Commissioner is justified in invoking section 263. 10. The reliance placed by the Ld. AR on Kelvinator of India Ltd. and Marico Ltd. is mispla....