TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 631X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted by the assessee and come to a conclusion that the order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and further he was supposed to make or to cause to make necessary enquiries to arrive at a conclusion that the assessment order in question was not sustainable. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act has been made by the ld. PCIT in a casual and mechanical manner which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act is, therefore, quashed. AO not added the notional rent income from the rest of three flats under income from house property - The assessee had let out the property in F.Y. 2016-17 and the rental income had accrued from June 2016. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the respondent ORDER Per Bench: By this common order, we will dispose off two appeals preferred by the assessee contesting the revision orders u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act both dated 20.02.2020 relevant to assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as PCIT ) 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee. However, after going through the impugned orders and the available records on the files and after hearing the ld. DR, we proceed to adjudicate the captioned appeals. 3. First, we will take up the assessee s appeal ITA No.443/Kol/2020 relevant to assessment year 2015-16. ITA No.443/Kol/2020 Assessment Year 2015- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee further submitted that the expenses had not been claimed under computation of income. The assessee also stated that the figure of purchase of ₹ 2, 67, 13, 020/- and labour charges paid ₹ 83, 23, 403/- under the head purchases in the ITR and had shown the income received against labour charges of ₹ 4447881/- separately as sale of services as parties had deducted TDS on the same. 5. The ld. PCIT without pointing out any error or discrepancy in the submissions of the assessee simply observed that the aforesaid explanation of the assessee was not made available to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. He, therefore, set aside the assessment order dated 18.12.2017 for de novo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee was in possession of four flats apart from his residential flat at Kolkata during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2016-17.He observed that the Assessing Officer has not added the notional rent income from the rest of three flats under income from house property . He, therefore, formed the opinion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and accordingly issued show-cause notice to the assessee u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. 8. In his submission dated 28.01.2020, the assessee stated that it was a fact that the assessee was having self-occupied house property at S.P.Mukherjee Road, Kolkata. The assessee was 50% owner of the said property with his wife Ms. Sarita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
