9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings u/s.263 do not stand to sustain if Principal Commissioner of Income-tax opts to take different view in the same matter. (4) The learned Pr. CIT was driven by extraneous consideration in not dropping the proceedings u/s.263. (5) The assessee craves leave to add, alter or vary any of the grounds of the appeal." 2. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee before us is an Individual and filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income at Rs. 91,08,060/-. The assessee earned income from textile, handloom and power looms during the year under consideration. In the assessee`s case the original assessment order under section 143(3) of the income Tax Act, 1961 was framed on 30.11.2017. 3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (ld PCIT) has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The ld PCIT noticed that assessee had sold an immovable property ( non-agricultural land) located at Kindorana, Tajuka Rajuia, which was registered before the SRO Rajula, vide registration no, 88/2015 dated 17.01.2015 for sale consideration of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e being a differential of amount of Rs. 5,22,19,600/- to be considered under section 50C of the Act, and (ii).Allowing of claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act without proper verification/ examination of the facts. 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, passed under section 263 of the Act, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Learned Counsel for the assessee submits before us that assessee has challenged the jurisdiction assumed by Ld Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-2, Surat, under section 263 of the Act. As per the Show- Cause notice dated 31-12-2019, the PCIT invoked jurisdiction by proposing to hold the assessment order erroneous on two scores; (a) Non-consideration of 50C angle, while finalizing the assessment by the AO, and (b) Denial of relief under section 54F for want of verification. Both the above points relate to a solitary transaction of long term capital gains on sale of plot by the assessee. The ld Counsel pointed out that AO had already taken a position by querying on Long Term Capital Gains during the course of assessment proceedings, while passing the order under section 143(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case for limited scrutiny through CASS which was also duly served upon the assessee. In view of the CBDT's Instruction No.8 of 2017, the assessee was also provided option to make compliance with departmental communications electronically through e-filling facility on income tax Business Application (ITBA) of Income Tax Department vides e-mail send on 05/10/2017. The assessee did not register his option; hence the assessment is completed offline. 3.In compliance to the above notices, Shri N P Bharucha of M/s. M S Choksi & Co., Chartered Accountant and authorized representative of the assessee attended this office on 03/08/2017. The A.R. of the assessee attended the office from time to time and filed the submissions/reply/explanations called for. The case was discussed with him. The reply/submissions/explanation of the assessee has been examined, duly considered and placed on record. However, no adverse inference in this case can be drawn on the basis of material present on record. 4.Subject to the above remarks and material made available on record, the total income of the assessee is computed as under: Sr. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) Total income as per comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of Rs. 5,22,19,600/- to be considered under section 50C of the Act, and about the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. The assessing officer did not investigate the facts stated in the return of income of the assessee, hence assessment order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 13. We note that during the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that Assessing Officer issued notice under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 26.07.2017 vide page no.8 of the paper book wherein, vide query No.(xii) raised by the Assessing Officer is about sale of immovable property and to justify capital gain. We note that assessee did not explain the transaction of sale of the immovable property and capital gain. The ld Counsel submitted before us (vide paper book page no.10), the copy of income tax return alongwith computation of total income which is placed at paper book page no.10A & 10B, and contended that assessee has explained the transaction of sale of the immovable property and capital gain during the assessment stage. We note that copy of income tax acknowledgment received by the assessee from Inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of deduction u/s 54 F of the Act, the assessee seeks to submit that they had given all the details to the AO of the property in question. It was submitted that after sale of original property, new property was purchased by them on 04.04.2015, whereas original property was sold on 17.01.2015. In respect of these aspects, it is a fact not disputed by the assessee that old property sold and the new property purchased have not been reflected in balance sheet of the assessee. Even if, the properties were not to be shown in the balance sheet, as none may have existed in the hands of assessee as on 31.03.2015, still the amount received as sale consideration of old property should have been reflected in the balance sheet in Capital Gain account of the assessee, which assessee has neither contended nor has demonstrated. The AO while completing the assessment has not looked into and examined these factual aspects. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances, as mentioned above, the assessment order passed by the AO allowing the deduction u/s 54Fof the Act without proper verification of the facts has rendered the assessment order erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
