TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1908
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssing the order u/s.263 of the Act and thus, in the interests of justice, we condone delay in filing of appeal and admit appeal filed by the assessee for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. That the Order of the Ld. Pr. CIT passed u/s.263 is erroneous on the procedural aspects involved in the case and provisions of Law as well and hence requires to be quashed. 2. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in failing to appreciate that order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 and 144B on 30.03.2022, is not erroneous when the issue of invoking the provisions of sec.50C was not a subject matter of deliberation in the impugned order set-aside u/s.263. 3. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in failing to appreciate that the time limit to revise the order passed u/s.143(3) on 29.12.2016, which dealt the issue of enforcing the provisions of sec.50C, ended on 31.03.2019, and the order passed by the Pr. CIT on 07.03.2024 is barred by limitation. 4. That the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in ignoring the principles enunciated by various Courts, that the original assessment order cannot be revised in the pretense of revising the subsequent reassessment ord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6,104/- as against the returned income of Rs. 7,24,874/-. ix. Aggrieved by the said addition, which had rejected the claim of deduction u/s.54F, the assessee had preferred an appeal and the Ld.CIT(A), Salem vide Order in ITA No.215/2016- 17 dated 25.02.2019, allowed the appeal of the assessee and granted deduction u/s.54F of the Act. x. Accordingly, the taxable income got restored to the returned income of Rs. 7,24,870/-. xi. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the Department that in respect of the newly acquired asset, which formed the basis for the claim of deduction u/s.54F, the cost of land is Rs. 1,02,00,000/- while the value as per the Stamp Valuation Authority was Rs. 1,08,00,000/-. xii. Accordingly, to enforce the taxation principle as per Sec.56(2)(vii)(b), the assessment was reopened and subsequently the Order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B was passed on 30.03.2022, enhancing the taxable income further by the differential sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. xiii. There were certain errors in the computation of income adopted in the order passed on 30.03.2022 which was rectified by the order dated 10.05.2023 and thereby the total income was recompute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was confined to invoking of the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b), that too, in respect of the asset newly acquired and does not pertain to the assets transferred resulting in LTCG. This process of applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) did not comprise any error. Therefore, the solitary intrigue in this appeal is whether the alleged error while invoking the provisions of Sec.50C of the Act, subsists in the original assessment order u/s.143(3) or in the subsequent reassessment order u/s.147 of the Act. 5.2 The ld.AR submitted that the issue of enforcing the provisions of Section 50C was deliberated in the order u/s.143(3) dated 29.12.2016 is proven from the contents of Para Nos. 4.2 and 4.3 of the said order. The action on part of the AO to invoke the provisions of Section 50C is already undertaken and if the same is found to be erroneous and calls for revision u/s.263, the same should have been accomplished on or before 31.03.2019. That the ld.PCIT, categorized the order u/s.147 r.w.s.144B dated 30.03.2022 to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, only on the solitary aspect of Section 50C, is substantiated by the contents of para 4 of the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Building) for a consideration of Rs. 38,15,000/- and the stamp duty value of the property was Rs. 1,04,40,000/- (RS. 1,01,25,000 for Land & Rs. 3,15,000/- for Building). The Sub-Registrar subsequently valued the building at Rs. 13,68,213/- as against the value of Rs. 3,15,000/- stated in the sale deed. During the assessment proceedings completed u/s.143(3) of the Act, the value of land & building was taken as Rs. 1,04,40,000/- by applying the provisions of section 50C of IT Act, 1961. However, the enhanced value of building of Rs. 10,53,213/- (Rs. 13,68,213 - Rs. 3,15,000) was not considered during the assessment u/s 143(3) & 147 r.w.sec. 144B of the IT Act dated 30-03-2022. (2) Similarly, the assessee had sold yet another property (Land & Building) for a consideration of Rs. 17,85,000/- and the stamp duty value of the property was Rs. 32,85,000/-, (Rs. 30,00,000/- for Land & Rs. 2,85,000/- for Building). The Sub-Registrar subsequently valued the building at Rs. 4,31,898/- as against the value of Rs. 2,85,000/- stated in the sale deed. During the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the value of land & building was taken as Rs. 32,85,000/- by applying the provisions of sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of a Hall and a Kitchen, first floor consists of a Bed Room and a Toilet. The assessee also spent *about Rs. 11,71,573/- for the construction of swimming pool and the building. 4.4. To verify the veracity of the facts, Inspector of this office was deputed for spot verification, on 16.12.2016." 7.1 Further, the denial of deduction u/s.54F was challenged by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A) and the same was allowed by the ld.CIT(A) in his order dated 25.02.2019 vide ITA No.215/2016-17. Later, the assessment was reopened by the AO based on the information that the value of the immovable property purchased by the assessee to claim the deduction u/s.54F of the Act was under reported by Rs. 6.00 Laksh (Stamp duty value Rs. 1.08 crores - Market value shown Rs. 1.02 Crores) u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The AO concluded the assessment U/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs. 6.00 Lakhs u/s.56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, as the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued. 7.2 Subsequently, the Ld.PCIT exercised the revisionary power u/s.263 of the Act considering the order of reassessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue for t....