TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or controvert this finding especially recorded by the ld. PCIT during the course of proceeding u/s 263 - In reference to above, the assessee had replied that the rental income offered by the assessee as business income was absolutely right and it should not be treated under the head of house property and in this context assessee did not even furnish any written submission in support of his contention before the ld. PCIT. It is thus clear that the claim of the assessee for rental income from commercial complex and tower shown as business income instead of house property was allowed by AO without making necessary enquiry which was called for in the facts and circumstances of the case and there was an error in the order passed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was determined by the assessing officer at Rs. 95,29,520/-. The records of the said assessment came to be examined by the ld. PCIT and on such examination he was of the view that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) of the Act suffered from the following error which was prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The relevant portion of the extract from the order passed by the ld. PCIT is as under: 2. On examination of assessment records for A,Y. 2017-18, it was observed that assessee have some rental income from commercial complex and tower amounting to Rs. 58,47,025/-. The same was treated as business income and various expenses was deducted from the above said rental income which resulted in income from commerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error and seeking explanation from the assessee as to why the assessment order passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) of the Act should not be revised by treating the same as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In reply, it was submitted by the assessee along with his authorized representative that the rental income offered as business income was absolutely right and should not be treated it under the head of house property. However, in this regard, the assessee nor his AR filed any written submission in support of their contention before the ld. PCIT. After hearing the assessee, the ld. PCIT accordingly held that the order passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) dated 16.12.2019 suffered from the error by stating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 263 of the Act by which ld. PCIT setting aside the regular assessment made u/s 143(3) of the Act. 7. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on this issue and also perused the relevant material available on record. As regards, the assessee allegedly pointed out by the ld. PCIT in the order passed by the ld. assessing officer u/s 143(3) of the Act by which he alleging that the claim of the assessee s rental income from commercial complex and tower amounting to Rs. 58,47,025/- shown as business income instead of house property income. However, during the assessment year 2016-17, the assessee has shown said rental income under the head of income from house property. Even in the assessment order, there is nothing on record to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
