Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 380 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - whether the Assessing Officer carried out enquiry or verification on the issue of applicability of provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) in respect of purchase of lands during the course of assessment proceedings or not? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, no doubt, the AO had examined the issue of applicability of section 56(2)(vii)(b) in respect of purchase of subject-lands, but merely accepted the valuation report furnished by the appellant without adhering to the provisions of section 50C - AO without going into the correctness of the valuation report merely accepted the valuation report furnished by the appellant. When the assessee objects the value as per the stamp duty valuation purpose, the only option available with the Assessing Officer is to refer the matter to the DVO as stipulated u/s 50C of the Act. In-fact, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Prabhu Steel IndustriesLtd., [2013 (7) TMI 204 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has clearly held that where the assessee objects the value adopted for stamp duty purpose, the only course available with the Assessing Officer is to refer the matter to the DVO. In the present case, the Assessing Officer without complying with the requirements of law had simply accepted the valuation report as furnished by the appellant. The Assessing Officer not following the mandatory provisions of law would render the assessment order erroneous which is amenable to the jurisdiction u/s 263 Without delving into the issue whether the agricultural lands come within the purview of section 56(2)(vii)(b), suffice to hold that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case Mubarak Gafur Korabu [2019 (4) TMI 1877 - ITAT PUNE] and the decision of Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Yogesh Maheshwari [2021 (1) TMI 832 - ITAT JAIPUR] do not come to the rescue of the assessee. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. PCIT was justified in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by setting aside the assessment order. Thus, the issue raised in the grounds of appeal stands dismissed.
|