9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts in this case as appearing on record are that the return of income was filed by the assessee-firm on 24/9/2009 declaring Nil income. Subsequently assessment was completed on 13/2/2015 under section 147/143(3) of the Act on the returned income. An information was gathered from AIR that the assessee has sold assets worth Rs. 3,41,23,200/- as per stamp valuation and registration deed was executed on 8/6/2009. However, assessee has not reflected this amount in its return of income, therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 147 of the Act for assessment year 2009-10 to the assessee on account of escapement of income after duly recording the reasons. During the assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that it had already ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wn at Rs. 3,41,23,200/- whereas the assessee has shown only Rs. 1.50 crores for the purpose of taxation. Thereafter the Pr. CIT elaborates on the facts that how the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly he set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and revised the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 263 of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved with the order of the Pr. CIT, the assessee preferred an appeal before us. At the time of hearing, the ld. A.R. of the assessee invited our attention to page 3 of the paper book which is the notice sent to the assessee by the Assessing Officer under section 142(1) of the Act regarding escapement of assessment and page ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basic question whether provisions of section 50C are applicable to the depreciable assets or not is very much a debatable issue. This view finds support from the following judicial pronouncements:- 1. CIT vs. Max India Ltd., [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC) 2. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83 (SC) 3. CIT vs. Hari Singh & Associates [2014] 102 DTR (Raj( 306. 4. CIT vs. Hewlett-Packard India Sales P. Ltd. [2016] 382 ITR 496 (Karn.) 8. We also find that necessary enquiry was conducted by the Assessing Officer as is evident from the documents filed before us in the paper book that the assessment order under section 147/143(3) of the Act was passed after conducting necessary enquiry. We have also perused the reasons recorded for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
