TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt order passed under section 143(3) with the direction to the Assessing Officer to reframe the same de novo. (2) That without prejudice to the contention raised in Ground No. 1 above, the Commissioner of Income Tax was wrong in observing that the assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer had allegedly been erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (3) That without prejudice to the contentions raised in Grounds No. 1 2 above, the Commissioner of Income Tax was wrong in stating in her order that the appellant would allegedly get selling/ ownership rights on the 50% of the built-up area. (4) That without prejudice to the contentions raised in Grounds No. 1 to 3 above, the Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax was wrong in observing in her order that the submissions made by the appellant before her, had allegedly not been supported by the appellant s own computation submitted during the assessment. 2. We observe that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 27.11.2008 and accepted the total income as declared by the assessee. It is relevant to state that the assessee in the computation filed, inter alia, declared long-term capital gain on sale of flats. The ld. CIT in exercise of his powers under section 263 of the Act has stated that the assesese entered into a development agreement with M/s. Navin Housing Properties (P) Ltd. to develop a piece of land into a residential complex. In terms of agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hands of the assessee will constitute profit from business and will be treated as income from business or profession. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. A.R. fairly conceded that the assessee could not file copies of all the documents/ agreements, which are placed in the paper book, before the Assessing Officer when the assessment was completed by him under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.11.2008. The ld. A.R. fairly conceded at the time of hearing that the assessment order is not a speaking order and it could not be relieved therefrom that he considered the details of the sale transactions of the flats and the details of the expenses as stated by the assessee in the computation of income, a copy of which is placed at pages 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, we hold that the ld. CIT has rightly exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act to set aside the assessment order after giving a finding that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is not only erroneous but is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. However, we hold that the Assessing Officer while framing the fresh assessment order, he will consider such document as may be produced by the assessee and also will accord full opportunity of hearing to the assessee without being influenced by the observation of the ld. CIT. 6. Subject to above observation, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order of ld. CIT. 7 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed subject to above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
