TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income at ₹ 65,98,200/-. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Hyderabad issued notice under section 263 dt. 18.1.2013 to the assessee calling upon him to show cause the reason as to why the said assessment order should not be revised under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income Tax held that the following issues have been noticed : (i) The assessee company has claimed expenditure towards purchase of land to the tune of ₹ 1,06,83,000 and verification of the sale deeds in respect of said purchase of land, revealed that the total cost of the land was at ₹ 15,83,000. Thus, the assessee company had made an excess claim of ₹ 91,00,000. (ii) In respect of the purchase of land vide sale deed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land owners. 5. Similarly, in the case of Shri M.Venkatarami Reddy, the total payment is ₹ 21,05,000/- whereas, the registered sale deed value at ₹ 3,05,000/- only and this excess amount has also been paid by account payee cheques. The learned Counsel for the assessee, further contended that the assessee has filed confirmations from various land owners who have received the extra amount from the assessee. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer has looked into and was satisfied with the contention of the assessee. 6. The learned DR on the other hand, relied on the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad B Bench in the case of Thermal Systems (Hyd) Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA.No.270/Hyd/2006 dated 15.02.2008 and Ashok Leyland 260 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65 to 72 of the paper book. The learned Counsel submitted that all materials were placed before Assessing Officer. Further, the learned Counsel for the assessee, relied on the following case laws. (i) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Max India 295 ITR 282 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) (iv) CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers 290 ITR 689 (Guj.) (v) CIT vs. Development Credit Bank 323 ITR 206 (vi) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers 194 Taxman 57 (Del.) (vii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma 194 Taxman 50 9. Further, the learned Counsel relied on the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spectra Shares Scrips Pvt. Ltgd. Vs. CIT-III (2013) 354 ITR 35 (AP) and also decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer was not formed any opinion. 11. To protect the interests of the Revenue, it is the duty of the CIT to exercise his power under section 263 of the I.T. Act. In the present case before us, the Assessing Officer has passed a creptic order. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S.C.) has held that where the Assessing Officer has accepted certain claims of income exempt from tax without making any enquiry, the exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT under section 263 is justified. In the present case before us, we have no clue whether the Assessing Officer has verified the fact that the land owners have received the amount and whether this amount is against purchase of the land re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
