TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt scheme in respect of the several transactions entered into by the assessee both for sale and purchase. Thus, we do not find any enquiry conducted by the concerned ITO in this regard which could be a solid foundation of the opinion made by the PCIT against the order passed by the ITO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is expected that the ITO would make an enquiry of a particular item of income in the absence of which in the facts and circumstances of the case in our considered opinion the Senior Revenue Officer as the PCIT has the jurisdiction to interfere with the matter under Section 263 of the Act on a prima facie finding of the order as passed by the ITO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in exercising the powers conferred by Section 263 of the Act in setting aside the issue with the direction upon the AO to frame an assessment afresh upon conducting as proper enquiries / verification of the above referred issues and to pass orders which in our considered opinion is just and proper so as to warrant interference. Hence, we confirm the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he amount was firstly required to be deposited in the Capital Gain account and thereafter payment was to be made from such capital gain account for availing the exemption, however, details of deposit in capital gain account are not available on record. Besides, it is also noticed that the assessee had paid cash of ₹ 38,09,810/- on purchase of land after 31/07/2010 and also availed exemption u/s. 54B of the Act which was not in accordance Math the provision of the Act as it indicated that the amount of cash was not out of capital gain. This has resulted in under assessment of long term capital gain (LTCG) of ₹ 64,47,347/- and resultant short levy of tax of ₹ 36,52,446/-. In view of above, you are being granted an opportunity ff being heard and to show cause as to why the aforesaid assessment made by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2010-11 should not be set-aside with a direction d make fresh assessment in accordance with the provisions of law in this regard. For this purpose, you may appear before the undersigned, in person or trough your authorized representative or file written submission on 03.03.2020 at 11:30 A.M./P.M. In case of non compliance, the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO, Ward 5(2)(3), Ahmedabad in ITA No. 490/Ahd/2017 for a.Y. 2013-14 (iii) Ashokkumar Kapasiwala vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Surat in ITA No. 2692/Ahd/2014 for A.Y. 2008-09 (iv) The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Ramchandra Rao in ITA no. 47 of 2014 c/w. ITA No. 46 of 2014 So far as the purchase of properties and having payment of the same amount in cash of ₹ 38,09,810/- the assessee submitted the following: The assessee is agriculturist by born and having only/agriculture income since so many years. He had not filed any income tax return before the above subject return under consideration. He had withdrawn sizable amount from his bank accounts on various dates in which sale proceeds of the land sold being received during the period and from such withdrawal of the amount and out of past saving and cash held by him, sum of which is nearer to of ₹ 38 lacs as mentioned by you, utilized for the purchase of properties, 6. The Ld. PCIT while dealing with the case made out by the assessee the observation as follows: A bare reading of section 54B clearly shows that the assessee is entitled to exemption in case he/she purchases agricultural land within a per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved as follows: It has been submitted by the assessee that he had withdrawn sizable amount from his bank accounts on various dates in which sale proceeds of the land sold being received during the period and from such withdrawal of the amount and out of past saving and cash held by him, sum of which is nearer to ₹ 38 lacs, utilized for the purchase of properties. In view of the clear words used in Section 54B(2) of the Act, it can be seen that the Act compels the assessee to deposit the unutilized amount in the prescribed scheme, therefore, this submission of the assessee is not acceptable since the assessee fails to comply with the provision of the Act and therefore, exemption availed by the assessee in this regard was required to be disallowed by the Assessing Officer which remained to be done. Accordingly, A.O. is directed to decide this issue afresh after conducting necessary inquiries, verification/ examination of the records, keeping in view the relevant provisions of the Act and also after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. 7. We have further perused the order passed by the ITO dated 16.12.2017 under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
