TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s passed the order on the basis of the receipts and payments statement, bank statement, sale deed copies etc., therefore, in absence of any specific reasoning given by the PCIT as to how the order has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and since he has cancelled an order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 18.4.2017 whereas the order passed u/s.143(3) in the instant case is 11.12.2017, therefore, it is a complete non-application of mind by the PCIT for which we set aside the order of the learned PCIT passed u/s. 263. The grounds raised by the assessee are therefore, allowed. - ITA No. 424/Hyd/2021 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2023 - Shri R. K. Panda , Accountant Member And Shri Laliet Kumar , Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Shashank Dundu , Advocate For the Revenue : Shri K. E. Sunil Babu , DR ORDER Per R. K. Panda , A M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.12.2017 of the learned Pr. CIT Tirupati, relating to A.Y. 2015-16. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 14.02.2017 admitting taxable income of Rs. 9,10,510/- and agricultural income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer, during the course of scrutiny proceedings, obtained copy of the Receipts and Payments account, bank statements, sale deed and held that they were all verified by him and that, therefore, the entire information required was made available before the Assessing Officer. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have seen that proper decision was taken by the Assessing Officer after duly considering the information submitted and that, therefore, ought not have set aside the order u/s. 143(3) by passing order u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act. 5. Any other ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing . 5. The learned Counsel for the assessee referring to the observation of the Assessing Officer at Para 2 of the assessment order drew the attention of the Bench to the same and submitted that the Assessing Officer mentioned that the assessee has been doing real estate business and in respect of investment in properties, he has explained the source to be advances and loans from various persons. Referring to the written submission filed by the assessee and the chronology of events, he submitted that on 23.7.2014 one Mrs. Kalavathi Rajendran d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e various decisions cited before us by both sides. We find the AO in the instant case, on the basis of various details filed by the assessee, completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 11,49,510/- by making addition of Rs. 2,39,000/- on lumpsum basis to the returned income of Rs. 9,10,510/-. We find the learned PCIT on examination of the record noted that the assessee has purchased a land for a consideration of Rs. 1,13,00,000/- against the market value of Rs. 4,04,25,000/- and has also paid stamp duty of Rs. 24,25,260/- on the above market value. Since the Assessing Officer has not inquired regarding the difference of Rs. 2,91,25,000/- and has not made addition of the same as income from other sources in the hands of the assessee, therefore, the order has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for which he set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer with a direction to redo the assessment denovo in accordance with law. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had filed the requisite details and explained the case based on which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enquiries before cancelling the assessment. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Sarogi Vs CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) ha_ held that an assessment order passed by the AO in undue haste without making any inquiry would be rendered as an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Similar view again is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Agarwal Vs. CIT reported in 88 ITR 323 (SC). 8. Section 263(1) of the I.T. Act stands amended by which the word erroneous has been further made clear and this amended section is effective from 01.06.2015. The section 263(1) of the I.T. Act is reproduced as under: For the purpose of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue, if in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner of Income tax:- (a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made (b) The order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring any claim. (c) The order has not been made in accordance with any order, di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18.4.2017 whereas the Assessing Officer in the instant case has passed the order on 11.12.2017. The chronology of the above events indicates that the learned PCIT in a very casual and negligent manner has passed the order and copy pasted the finding of some other assessee in the instant case. In our opinion, great power comes with extraordinary responsibility and should be exercised mindfully and cautiously. However, in the instant case, the same appears to be not at all exercised in the manner in which it should have been exercised. 10.1. Even on merit also, we find that by the time the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order u/s. 143(3) on 11.12.2017, the Civil Court vide order dated 16.8.2016 in OS No. 454/12 had passed the judgment against the seller namely Ms. Kalavati Rajendran who had sold the property to the assessee and has held that the title of Ms. Sukul Yashoda is valid and the claim of Ms. Kalavati about the title and ownership of the impugned property was declared as void. Since the title of the seller and in consequent of the assessee are held to be bad in law, therefore, the question of making the addition on the basis of such a defective and illegal title ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
