TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The selection of the case was for limited scrutiny and the Ld. PCIT has not shown on what issue the order was erroneous on the issues on which the selection of the case was made. Other issues cannot be considered for setting aside the order. Coordinate Jaipur Bench in SHRI ASHOK AGARWAL HUF AND (VICE-VERSA) [ 2020 (8) TMI 94 - ITAT JAIPUR] on similar issue in the case of real estate dealer had taken a view that for the purpose of section 56(2)(vii)(b) the term capital asset would not include the stock in trade. This is one possible view which if taken cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In these ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 11.10.2014 at total income of ₹ 12,08,650/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under Cass and order u/s 143(3) was made on 29.12.2016 in which the returned income was accepted. 3. The ld PCIT observed that the assessee had purchased a property jointly with one person in which there was difference in the value as adopted for stamp duty purposes and as per provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) income ₹ 11,05,000/- was liable to be included in the hands of the assessee and accordingly the notice u/s 263 had been issued to the assessee. The contention of the PCIT in his order was that after the insertion of the explana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted only in those scrutiny cases which have been selected on the parameter and in such cases, the Assessing Officer, shall also confine the questionnaire only to the specific issues. 6. The assessee also referred to the decision in the case of Gift Land Handicrafts vs. CIT reported in 108 TTJ (Del) 312 in which it was held that the cases of limited scrutiny cannot exceed jurisdiction beyond the notice issued for such limited scrutiny and therefore the CIT was not justified in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 on issues other than those decided in limited scrutiny assessment. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Nayek Paper Converters vs. ACIT (2005) 93 TTJ (Cal) 574 in which also the case was selected for limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal asset is generally a matter of estimate based to some extent on guess work and despite the utmost bona fides, the estimate of the fair market value is bound to vary from individual to individual. This condition of 15 per cent or more difference in the said section was merely intended to be a safeguard against the undue hardship which would be occasioned to the assessee if the inflexible rule of thumb enacted in section is applied in marginal cases. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that the Court should as far as possible avoid that construction which attributes irrationality to the legislature. 8. The assessee further contended that the stamp value of a general area cannot override the specific instance of the property a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HUF reported in (2020) 207 TTJ (Jp) 608 in which also it was held that the plots of land were in the nature of stock in trade and assessee was real estate developer. These stock in trade do not fall in the definition of capital asset as per provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. Similar view was also taken in the case of Prem Chand Jain vs. ACIT reported in (2020) 207 TTJ (Jp) 629. 11. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld. PCIT. 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record and we find that the assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The selection of the case was for limited scru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
