9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Rs. 5,81,04,300/- in the hands of the assessee shareholders, i.e. Shri Ashok Thankappan Nair and Smt. T. Lekha. 2. Shri B. Ramakrishnan, CA represented the assessee and Shri Shantham Bose, CIT-DR represented Revenue. 3. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the residential property belonging to Mr. Ashok Thankappan Nair and Smt. T. Lekha (assessees herein) were constructed for Rs. 5,81,04,300/- over a period of 4 years during the financial years 2012-13 to 2015-16. This sum was admittedly spent by M/s. Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of the assessees. Admittedly, the assessees are directors in Artech Realtor Pvt. Ltd. having substantial voting power of more than 10 pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prove that the company, i.e. M/s. Artech Realtors Pvt. Ltd. had taken up this project of construction of residential house on commercial basis through the said work is done for the purpose of the directors of the assessee company. Hence it can be safely construed that the work had been done in the normal course of business by the company on behalf of the directors. Since the transaction is carried out in the normal course of business of a company, even though said activity is carried out for the Directors of the said company, there cannot be applicability of provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act as it would fall within the exception clause. Hence in these circumstances, the cost of construction of residential house carried out in the no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... construction of the residential premises. The learned A.R. placed on record the consequential assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the At dated 20.03.2020 wherein the learned DVO had determined the value of the property at Rs. 5.56 crores without considering the cost of land and moveable furniture, etc. We find that the assessees had claimed the cost of construction at Rs. 5,81,04,300/-. 8. When all these facts were confronted to the learned D.R., he vehemently argued that the learned AO had passed completely non speaking orders both under Section 153A in the case of Shri Ashok Thankappan Nair and under Section 153C in the case of Smt. T. Lekha. Hence the Pr. CIT is fully justified in invoking the provisions under Section 26 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egard has been rightly pled by the learned A.R. on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. reported in (2011) 332 ITR 167 (Del). 9. We further find in para 8 of the order that the learned Pr. CIT had merely directed the learned AO to examine the issue flagged by him in the order without pointing out where the order of the learned AO is erroneous. This only tantamount to directing the AO of fishing and roving enquires which is not permissible under Section 263 of the Act. Nothing stops the learned Pr. CIT from making enquiries on his own and bring on record how the order passed by the learned AO is erroneous. 10. In view of the aforesaid observations the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
