Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 958 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTRevision u/s 263 - As per CIT AO failed to enquire on the applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) (ii) - Whether Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer but the PCIT had considered the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue without assigning any reasons? - HELD THAT:- The view taken by the learned ITAT is based on logical findings. While rendering the judgment, the learned ITAT has relied upon various judgments of different High Courts and considered the provisions of 56(2)(vii) pre-amendment and post-amendment. Learned ITAT has held that law contained in Section 56(2)(vii)(b) as stood on the date of allotment letter (on 11.11.2009), falling in assessment year 2010-11, did not contemplate the situation of a receipt of property by the buyer with inadequate construction. The learned ITAT has held categorically that the amended provisions of Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) could not be applied and they have relied upon the judgment of Bajranghlal Naredi Vs. ITO [2020 (1) TMI 1359 - ITAT, RANCHI]. It is held time and again by the Apex Court qua the admission of appeal on substantial questions of law, more specifically in the case of Commissioner of Customs-I Vs. Aasu Exim Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (12) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT] and Steel Authority of India Ltd. [2017 (4) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT] if the learned ITAT, on consideration of material and relevant facts, had arrived at the conclusion which is a possible conclusion, the same must be allowed to rest even, if this court is inclined to take another view of the matter. In the case at hand, logical reasonings was given by the learned ITAT and there is no gross violation of the procedure or principles of natural justice occasioning a failure of justice. - Decided against revenue.
|