9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year 2010-11. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal : "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT is bad in law. 2. The Appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any ground/s before or at the time of hearing." 2. Succinctly stated, on the basis of information received by the A.O that the assessee a/w her husband i.e, co-owners of a piece of land situated at Ward No.9, Municipal Corporation, Korba (Khasra No. 175/11) had entered into an "agreement of sale", dated 12.11.2008 for a consideration of Rs. 65 lacs (as against the segment rate of Rs. 73.15 lac), and thereafter had executed a registered "sale deed", dated 22.02.2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uant to the directions of the Pr. CIT deputed his Inspector to carry out necessary field enquiry and verify the assessee's claim of having constructed a residential house on the basis of which claim for deduction u/s.54 of the Act was raised by her. On the basis of report dated 14.03.2017, the Inspector of Income-Tax reported that the construction of the house in question was still incomplete as on the date of his visit i.e, on 14.03.2017. Considering the report of the Income-tax inspector, it was observed by the Pr. CIT that the residential house in question was not only incomplete but was also unfit for human habitation and was not physically occupied by anyone. It was observed by the Pr. CIT that as per field enquiry that was made throug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dispose off the appeal as per Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 i.e, after hearing the respondent revenue and perusing the orders of the lower authorities. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that as the Assessing Officer had grossly erred in law and on facts of the case in summarily accepting the assessee's claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act i.e, without carrying out any examination and verification of the genuineness of the said claim for deduction, therefore, the Pr. CIT had rightly exercised his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and set-aside the assessment order. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the orders of the low ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s construction of a new house at Nehru Nagar, Korba. As the summarily acceptance of the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 28 lacs u/s.54 of the Act by the Assessing Officer i.e., without making any enquiry or necessary verification which should have been made by him, clearly falls within the sweep of Clause (a) of "Explanation 2" to Section 263 of the Act, therefore, we concur with the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 20.06.2014 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue under Section 263 of the Act. But then, as a word of caution, we may herein observe, that as the assessee had admittedly sold the property for a cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
