9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial to the interest of revenue. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in holding that the assessee has under reported sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 1,03,06,558/- as per section 50C of the I. T. Act & the same is not considered by assessing officer during the assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax has erred in passing revisionary order u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 setting aside the order of Id. assessing officer passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the I. T. Act, 1961 dated 16.03.2022 with a direction to the assessing officer to pass fresh assessment order after taking into consideration the issues as may have been already considered together with the issue covered u/s 263 of the I. T. Act. 4. It is therefore prayed that order passed by Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 263 of the I. T. Act, 1961 setting aside the order of assessing officer and directing assessing officer to pass fresh assessment order may please be quashed. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviso to Section 50C, which was made applicable from 01/04/2017. The ld. Pr.CIT also referred both the proviso to Section 50C and was of the view that the land was transferred on 18/10/2014 relevant to F.Y. 2014-15/A.Y. 2015-16. Proviso to Section 50C relied by the assessee are effective from A.Y. 2017-18, thus the contention of assessee was required to be rejected and to apply the provisions of Section 50C for computing correct capital gain. The ld. Pr.CIT also worked out the capital gain in his show cause notice and also worked out the consequential short levy of tax of Rs. 21,32,502/-. The ld. Pr.CIT, thus recorded that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. The assessee filed his reply on 18/03/2014. The contents of reply are recoded in para 5.2 of impugned order. The assessee in its reply submitted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order is passed after making detailed enquiry on the point in issue. The Assessing Officer verified the issue by issuing show cause notice dated 12/03/2022 and after considering the repl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021) 123 taxmann.com 252. 4. The reply of assessee was not accepted by the ld. PCIT. The ld. PCIT by referring his earlier contention as taken in show cause notice held that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order without proper verification or enquiry and his application of mind and failed to make the addition of the total income of assessee. The ld. Pr.CIT by referring Section 263 of the Act held that proviso to Section 50C of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 which are effective from A.Y. 2017-18 and the contention of assessee was liable to be rejected. The ld. Pr.CIT set aside the assessment order dated 16/03/2022 and directed to pass the order afresh after taking into consideration the issues as may have already been considered together with the issue discussed by him after giving opportunity to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Pr.CIT, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submissions of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the order p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e relied on the following decisions; * Girdharbhai Haribhai Gajera Vs ITO (2023) 149 taxmann.com 463 (Surat Trib), * Ramesh Govind Patel Vs ITO (2020) 118 taxmann.com 201, * Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs ITO (International Taxation) (2021) 123 taxmann.com 252. * Dharamshibhai Sonani Vs ACIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 141(Ahmedabad Trib), * Rahul G Patel Vs DCIT (2018) 97 taxmann.com 598 (Ahmedabad Trib), * ITO Vs Meelendra Deependra Singh (2024) 164 taxmann.com 8 (Mumbai- Trib), * CIT Vs Ganpat Ram Bishnoi (2006) 152 TAXMAN 242 (Raj). 6. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of ld PCIT. The ld CIT-DR for the revenue submits that the assessment order is cryptic and does not disclosed the investigation carried out by the AO. There was no application of mind on the facts and on the law applicable on the facts of the present case. The ld PCIT in his finding has categorically held that AO has passed assessment order without proper verification or enquiry and his application of mind and failed to make the addition of the total income of assessee. Proviso to Section 50C of the Act was inserted by the Finance Act, 2016 which is effective from A.Y. 2017- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order dated 16/03/2022. No doubt, no such fact is mentioned in detail in the assessment order. The ld. Pr.CIT in his show cause notice identified the similar issue, which was the basis of reopening. We find that Mumbai Tribunal in Dharamshibhai Somani Vs ACIT (supra) held that insertion of proviso to Section 50C by Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01/04/2017 has retrospective effect. We also find that the Mumbai Tribunal in Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs ITO (supra) held that amendment made in the scheme of Section 50C (1) by inserting third proviso thereto by enhancing tolerance band for variation between the stated sale consideration viz a viz stamp duty valuation from 5 Percent to 10 Percent are effective from the date on which Section 50C, itself was introduced i.e. 01/04/2003. We further find that the Ahmedabad Tribunal in case of Ramesh Govindbhai Patel Vs ITO (supra) also held that when agreement to sell fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration of property is different, value adopted by Stamp Valuation Authority on date of agreement was to be taken for the purpose of computing full value of consideration of such transfer. We find that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
