KOSI CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED,KANKE ROAD vs. ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

Shri Devesh Poddar and Shri R.R.Mittal, ld. ARs appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri H.Robindro Singh, ld. CIT-DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. P a g e 1 | 8

It was submitted by the ld. AR that there was a search and seizure operation conducted on the assessee’s group on 28.07.2021. Returns have been filed by the assessee. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had found that the assessee had disclosed the sale of 5 flats owned by the assessee to its sister concern for sale consideration of Rs.2,69,40,000/- and after reducing the cost of purchase, the capital gain was disclosed by the assessee at Rs.1,06,06,667/-. It was the submission that the Assessing officer had also sent the flats sold by the assessee for valuation by the DVO and after considering the valuation by the DVO had accepted the long term capital gains as disclosed by the assessee. It was submission that the Ld.PCIT invoked his powers u/s 263 of the Act to hold that the flats which have been sold by the assessee to its sisters’ concern could not have been sold insofar as the legal ownership and the registered transfer was not demonstrated. It was the submission that the Ld. PCIT has taken the stand that the flats have been shown as only advance paid for. It was the submission that the issues of the long term capital gain in respect of the sale of the 05 flats have been looked into details by the AO in the course of assessment proceedings. It was the submission that the order u/s 263 of the Act is being done only for replacing the opinion of the Ld.PCIT over that of the AO. It was the further submission that no specific error has been pointed out. It was the submission that all enquiries have been done by the AO. It was the prayer that the order passed u/s.263 of the Act is liable to be quashed. Ld. AR has also filed written submissions which reads as follows :-

In reply, ld. CIT-DR vehemently supported the order of the ld. Pr.CIT. It was submission that the relevant enquiries which were required to be made by the AO had not been done. It was the submission that even though the AO has called for certain details but he has not examined them. It was the submission that the ld. Pr.CIT has recognized that the AO had only kept the submissions and that too only partial submissions on record and had proceeded to complete the assessment. It was the submission that the order passed by the ld. Pr.CIT is liable to be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that in the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has examined the issue in regard to the sale of the flats. The AO has also examined the details in regard to the purchase of the flats. A perusal of the page 6 of the assessment order shows that all these details have been placed before the AO and the AO has recorded the same in his assessment order. The AO has questioned the valuation of the flat sold. The AO had the flats valued by the DVO. It is only after all these examinations, the AO had accepted the returned income. The claim of the ld. Pr. CIT that the AO had called for certain details but did not examine them does not stand to reason insofar as the assessment order says otherwise. The claim of the ld. Pr.CIT that the AO had only kept the submissions and that too only partial submissions on record and moved on to complete the assessment also does not stand to reason, insofar as the AO has gone to the extent of even questioning the valuation of the flats. This being so, as it is noticed that the issue has been adjudicated and looked into threadbare by the AO, the order u/s.263 of

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed..