9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 30.06.2016 was erroneous in so far as being prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and was set aside. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is nonbanking Finance Company engaged in the business of providing loans to its clients and for making investment in shares and properties. The return of income was filed declaring an income of Rs. 1,63,290/-. However, tax had been paid on Book profit of Rs. 16,07,775/- under provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and, subsequently, the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 1,68,565/- after making an addition on account of interest u/s 244A of the Act. 2.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that since the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer had been passed without making any enquiries into the claim of the assessee and further because the AO had failed to make the mandatory reference to the DVO, the same was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Ld. Pr. CIT also noted that the assessee had not deducted tax at source on the cost of improvement of Rs. 6,88,500/-. The Ld. Pr. CIT went on to hold that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act was erroneous in so far as being prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and was, therefore, to be set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to frame the assessment afresh by conducting proper enquiries. 2.4 Aggrieved by this order, the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the issue of cost of improvement of Rs. 6,88,500/-, the A.O. has merely relied upon the vouchers submitted by the company and he did not examine the nature of expenses that will qualify for deduction for calculating capital gain. 3.1 That under the facts and circumstances, the order of A.O. on the issue of cost of improvement of Rs. 6,88,500/- is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. That the PCIT further erred in law and on merits for a finding in the impugned order u/s.263 that TDS was not deducted on cost of improvement of Rs. 6,88,500/-, the issue which was not covered in the show cause notice therefore, any finding or direction on this issue is outside the scope of impugned proceedings u/s. 263 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly Rs. 4,57,600/- which was approximately a difference of 10.4% of the declared value. It was submitted that, therefore, there was erroneous. 3.1 It was submitted that it was erroneous part of the Ld. Pr. CIT to have invoked Explanation-2 to Section-263 of the Act because such explanation can be invoked only where the assessment is made without enquiry or verification or where relief is allowed or where the assessment order is not passed in accordance with any direction or instruction of the Board or where the assessment order is not passed in accordance with the decision rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court or the Hon'ble Apex Court. It was submitted that the assessee's case did not fall in any of the four conditions under which Exp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Pr. CIT and submitted that provisions of Section 263 had been rightly invoked by the Ld. Pr. CIT and that it was apparent from the assessment order that there was a complete lack of enquiry by the Assessing Officer with respect to the issue of computation of capital gains. 5.0 We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. It is seen that in response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had furnished copies of sale deed and purchase deed and also the bill pertaining to renovation work carried out in the residential flat sold by the assessee. It is undisputed fact that the assessee has shown a lower amount as sale consideration than as mentioned in the sale deed for the purposes of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is our considered opinion that by not referring the issue of valuation to the DVO, the Assessing Officer had taken one of the possible views and this discretion of the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as being erroneous as has been held by the Ld. Pr. CIT. 5.1 Similarly, the assessee had duly submitted the details of renovation which were carried out in the flat sold by him and the Assessing Officer, by taking one of the possible two views, accepted the same. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer did not make any enquiry what so ever in this regard. The Assessing Officer called for certain details and the assessee submitted them. On the Assessing Officer being satisfied with the same, the Assessing Officer took one o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
