TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent order passed by the assessing officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on the ground that the assessing officer has not applied his mind and has not conducted any inquiry and not applied the correct position of law in respect applicability of section 50C of the Act on sale of plot at Mavdi. The order passed by PCIT required to b quashed and may kindly be quashed. 4. The Learned Pr. CIT erred on facts as also in law in setting aside the assessment order dated 24.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the assessing officer to pass a fresh assessment order. The order passed u/s. 263 of the Act by the learned Pr. CIT is totally unjustified on facts as also in law therefore the same may kindly be quashed. 5. Your Honor's appellant craves leave to add, to amend, alter or withdraw any or more grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal." 3. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee, before us, is an individual and has filed his return of income for assessment year (AY) 2016-17, on 10.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs. 3,86,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r under consideration. You have declared short term capital gain by taking sale consideration of above referred property at Rs. 21,00,000/-, being 6% of total sale consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, you have objected reopening proceedings. The assessing officer has simply accepted your explanation without due verification and inquiry and not made any addition in this regard. Considering the value of the property adopted by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority for the purpose of Stamp duty Rs. 2,52,367/- being 6% share of differential value, as stated above is required to be added as per the provisions of section 50C of the I.T. Act. However, the assessing officer failed to add the same while finalizing the assessment order. 3. In this case the assessment order has been passed without making due inquiry/verification. Hence, in terms of Explanation 2 to sec. 263, such order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue." 6. During the proceedings u/s.263 of the Act, the Ld. PCIT issued notice u/s.263 of the Act, to the assessee, to explain the transaction. In response to the notice of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee has filed wr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing officer failed to add the same while finalizing the assessment order. Therefore, ld. PCIT was of the view that assessee`s case is a fit case for invoking section 263 of Act, as the twin conditions namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous: and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue are satisfied. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order passed by the assessing officer u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 24.03.2022, was set aside by ld. PCIT, for fresh assessment only to the extent of the issues discussed (supra). 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. Learned Counsel for the assessee, in this regard, submitted that the assessing officer has made adequate enquiry during the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer has issued notice to the assessee which is placed at paper book page no. 21, wherein the assessing officer has raised the same issue, which is raised by the ld. PCIT. The Ld. Counsel stated that adequate enquiry was made by the assessing officer during the assessment stage, hence, the view taken by the assessing officer cannot be corrected by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d nor become payable. However, as per the provision of stamp duty regulations, stamp duty has been collected by the authority on this common plot also. Had the ld. PCIT gone through these facts and circumstances, then order passed by the assessing officer would be neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 12. We find that assessing officer has made adequate enquiry. The assessing officer has issued notice to the assessee, which is placed at paper book page no.21, wherein the assessing officer has raised the issue stating as follows: "(3) On scrutiny of your documents, it is seen that during the AY 2016-17 you have sold an immovable property along with other co-owners. Further, it is seen that as per the sale deed, the sale consideration is shown at Rs. 3,50,00,000/- (your share: Rs. 17,50,000/- @5%) and the stamp duty has been paid thereon. However, as per the jantri value of stamp duty valuation authority, the fair market value of the said property comes to Rs. 3,92,06,122/- (Your share: Rs. 19,62,306/- @5% share). In this connection you are requested to please furnish the following details: 1. Please furnish all your bank statements fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessing officer, during the assessment stage. We note that in the assessment order itself, the assessing officer has mentioned the details of the property and the submission of the assessee and then after the conclusion reached by the assessing officer, after due verification, are as follows: "The assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income for A.Y.-2016-17 on 10/10/2016, declaring total income of Rs. 3,86,070/- and Net agricultural income of Rs. 20,88,692/-. During the Financial Year 2015-16, relevant to the Asst. Year 2016-17 the assessee, along with other co-owners had sold immovable property. It is seen that as per the sale deed, the sale consideration is shown at Rs. 3,50,00,000/- (Assessee's share: Rs. 17,50,000/- @5%) and the stamp duty has been paid thereon. However, as per the jantri value of stamp duty valuation authority, the fair market value of the said property comes to Rs. 3,92,06,122/- (Assessee's share: Rs. 19,60,306/- @ 5% share). It is seen that though the assessee has filed return of income for A.Y.2016-17 but the assessee has shown short term capital gain of only Rs. 7,37,308/-. As per Jantri value, the assessee's sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ell within the A.O.'s possession and what he alleged was about the plausible view taken by the A.O. as against his perception and understanding on the same set of facts and documents. Therefore, the notices issued for examination of the issues during the assessment proceedings and submission and verification of the same has not been shown to be fallacious. In this connection it is pertinent to mention here that the way in which assessment should be finalized falls in the exclusive domain of the Assessing Officer. Section 142(1) speaks of inquiry before assessment and gives immense power to the A.O. for conducting enquiry. Therefore, the A.O. u/s 142(1)(ii) & (iii) can ask the assessee almost any information which he thinks necessary for passing assessment and even if Ld. PCIT has such results of enquiries, the resultant order cannot be subjected to revision proceedings. Therefore, the very initiation of proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. C.I.T. is in violation of the settled position in law. When the conditions precedent for invoking revisional power u/s. 263 of the Act on the facts and in the circumstances of the case are not fulfilled in the case of the assessee, the s....