9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The background facts of the case are that the assessee, along with 13 others, entered into a joint venture (JV) agreement with a Builder, M/s. Nikunjam Construction Pvt. Ltd., on 28.3.2007, for construction of a commercial building on 84 cents of land at Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvanamthapuram, of which the assessee's share was 25 cents. Pursuant thereto, the assessee transferred 17.25 cents of her undivided share in the land vide sale deed dated 04/8/2008, retaining the balance 7.75 cents, representing 9.22% undivided right (7.75/84x100) in the total land, entitling her to a right in the total built-up area to that extent (9.22%, or 14,660 sq.ft.) vide handing over agreement dated 15.10.2011. In view thereof, capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t appellate authority, toward which Shri Nair, Advocate, the ld. counsel for the assessee, would place on record copy, unverified though, of Form 35, dated nil. Adverting to Gd.4 of the Grounds of Appeal, it was submitted by him that the assessee's rights having extinguished on the execution of the sale deed dated 04.8.2008, capital gains was assessable for AY 2009-10. The revision for the current year is, thus, misplaced. 3.2 Smt. Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, the Sr. DR, would draw our attention to section 263(1) of the Act, stating that no appellate order had admittedly been passed even till date, for the assessee to plead exclusion on that basis. 4. We have heard the parties, perused the material on record, and given our careful consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he revisionary authority finds the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, and the grievance/s caused to the assessee thereby, and which is therefore the subject matter of the pending appeal by her before the first appellate authority, and toward which we have perused the Grounds even other than Gd. 4 referred to for the purpose before us. Two, even if there is an overlap, inasmuch as no appellate order stands passed u/s.250 of the Act as on the date the proposal u/s. 263 was communicated to the assessee per email, i.e., 28.6.2001, much less the date of the impugned order (31.3.2022), it is the jurisdiction of the appellate authority that would stand excluded to that extent, and not that of the revisionary autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, and Gd. B qua Explanation 1(c) to s. 263(1), also raised other Grounds, which are on the merits of the observations made by the ld. Pr. CIT. The same are clearly premature as the revisionary authority has not decided the issue/s raised by him on merits, and it is a case of open set aside by him. In fact, as would be apparent from the foregoing, no arguments qua the same were advanced before us.
4.5 In view of the foregoing, we find no reason to interfere and, accordingly, decline to. We decide accordingly.
5. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed. Her stay petition, even otherwise premature, becomes, in view of the said dismissal , infructuous .
Order pronounced in the open Court on February 03, 2023. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
