TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 10, Piplod. We further find that despite giving all such details, the ld. Pr.CIT instead of giving his independent finding, directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order. We find that on similar submission, this combination of this Bench in Nilkanth Stone Industries [ 2021 (6) TMI 133 - ITAT SURAT] by relying upon the decision of Vikas Polymers [ 2010 (8) TMI 745 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that it is a prerequisite that Pr.CIT must giving his reason to justify the exercise of suo moto revision. Mere reiteration that order of Assessing Officer is erroneous and in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue will not suffice. The exercise of power being quasi-judicial in nature must be of such as to show that the enhancement or modification of assessment or cancellation of the assessment or directions issued for fresh assessment was called for and must irresistibly lead to the conclusion that the assessment order is not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of revenue Thus we find that when the case of assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the Assessing Officer made complete investigation about the issue of limited scrutiny and accepted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice under Section 263 of the Act. 3. In the show cause notice, the ld. Pr.CIT noted that in the fixed asset column, the assessee has shown nine immovable properties aggregating of Rs. 5.33 crores but the assessee has offered rental income of Rs. 43,400/- after claiming standard deduction under Section 24(a) of the Act. Annual letting value (ALV) is required to be determined in accordance with Section 23 of the Act by taking into account, only rent received, municipal rent, fair market and standard rent. The ld. Pr.CIT was of the view that in absence of any other data fair rent may be determined by taking 7% of ALV of assets/flats shown in the balance sheet and by deducting 30% of standard rent. The ld. Pr.CIT worked out the short levy of income under the head income from house property of Rs. 25,70,679/-. The ld. Pr.CIT further noted that the assessee has not offered any income from house property, except of Rs. 43,400/-. During assessment, the Assessing Officer has not raised any query in respect of income from house property for remaining properties. By referring such fact, the ld. Pr.CIT issued show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act that the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee filed her reply vide reply dated 15/01/2021, in furnishing complete details as desired by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR further submits that in respect of specific query of Assessing Officer with regard to schedule of assets and liabilities, the assessee furnished all details /entries of assets and liabilities as held by the assessee in part A-BS of Form ITR-3 and explained that no other assets and liabilities are left to be specified in schedule of assets and liabilities. The assessee also furnished complete details of ITR for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee also submitted that all assets and liabilities are disclosed by her in the balance sheet and is not required to fulfill assets and liabilities statement in ITR. The ld. AR of the assessee invited our attention on the list of fixed assets as shown in the balance sheet, relevant part of which is filed as per page No. 17 of paper book and would submit that all nine properties held by assessee are duly shown. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that as required earlier for the purpose of wealth tax, the assessee has shown assets and liabilities other than those included in the part A-BS of return of firm wherein the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 263 of the Act. 8. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that despite giving complete details and explanation about various properties as recorded by ld. Pr.CIT, the ld. Pr.CIT instead of giving his finding, directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order. The ld. Pr.CIT has not dealt with explanation offered by assessee in the course of proceedings under Section 263 of the Act. Section 263 does not empower Ld PCIT to take action on such fact to arrive at a conclusion that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, unless he deal with the plea of the assessee. To support such submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that on such similar submission, the combination of this Bench in Nilkanth Stone Industries Vs Pr.CIT (2021) 128 taxmann.com 416 (Surat-Trib) quashed the similar order under Section 263 of the Act. 9. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue after submits that Section 263 of the Act prescribed only twin condition that assessment order passed by Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. There is no restriction on the power of Pr.CIT that case was sel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. We find that the Assessing Officer accepted the plea of assessee and passed the assessment order without any detail discussion, while accepting returned income of Rs. 3.27 Crore. 12. We further find that the ld. Pr.CIT in his show cause notice referred nine properties owned by assessee. In response to show cause notice, the assessee has explained about each and every property and user thereof or explaining that out of such property, plot No. 13A Adarsh Nagar is open plot and Kailashnagar property is still now owned by assessee and rest of the properties were either self-occupied or under the use of partnership firm wherein the assessee is a partner being Doctor in the hospital. The ld. AR of the assessee has also furnished necessary evidence with regard to each and every property as well as confirmation by the nurses who is occupying the flat No. 10, Piplod. We further find that despite giving all such details, the ld. Pr.CIT instead of giving his independent finding, directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order. 13. We find that on similar submission, this combination of this Bench in Nilkanth Stone Industries Vs Pr.CIT (supra) by relying upon the decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
