2020 (12) TMI 1427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct'. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. We advert to the basic relevant facts. This assessee had filed his return on 25.02.2015 stating total income of Rs. 36,13,890/-. The same stood summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer thereafter took up CASS limited scrutiny on the sole issue of "sale consideration of property in ITR is less than consideration reported" and framed the regular assessment in issue dated 11.03.2016 not only accepting the taxpayer's impugned income but also made it clear therein that the gross sale consideration was the same in ITR and information available with the department. 3. A perusal of the case file suggest that the PCIT thereafter sought to invoke his sec. 263 revision ju....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he limited scrutiny assessment proceeding. As the scope of thorough enquiry in your case was restricted in view of the CBDT's instruction no. 7 of 2014 dated 26/9/2014 and since there was a very little time left with the A.O after the submission of the relevant documents relating to the property by you, the A.O was constrained to accept the income declared in the return. Subsequent scrutiny of the sale deed as submitted by you during the assessment proceeding revealed that there was a difference of rs.39,31,200/- between the sale consideration actually received by you and the stamp duty valuation of the property. Hence the said amount ought to have been brought to tax under the head "Capital Gain" in consonance with the provisions ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....htful consideration to rival pleadings against and in support of the PCIT's action invoking sec. 263 revision jurisdiction. There can hardly be any dispute about the settled law regarding the impugned revision jurisdiction that before the CIT or the PCIT, as the case may be, seeks to revise any assessment by terming it as an erroneous causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue, he has to satisfy himself that both these conditions co-exist simultaneously as held in in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Max India (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) and Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kwality Steel Suppliers Complex (2017) 395 ITR 1 (SC) to this effect. Their lordships further ....