JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA,KALYAN vs. PR. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, THANE-1, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3121/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 June 2025AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) had assumed jurisdiction based on a wrong appreciation of facts. The assessee had purchased the impugned property on 03/08/2021, which falls within the financial year 2021-22, relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. However, the assessment order under challenge was for AY 2021-22. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's apprehensions regarding the non-application of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) or Section 50C were relevant for AY 2022-23 and not for the assessment year under consideration (AY 2021-22). Since the assumption of jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT was based on a factual error, the Tribunal found no hesitation in setting aside the Pr. CIT's order dated 27/03/2025 and restoring the assessment order passed by the AO dated 26/12/2022. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Johar Hasan Zojwalla, engaged in real estate business, filed its return for AY 2021-22 on 15/03/2022, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,20,31,010/-. The assessment order was framed on 26/12/2022 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B, making an addition of Rs. 6,03,81,465/- by disallowing a deduction claim under Section 80IBA. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT), Thane-1, issued a show-cause notice on 06/03/2025 under Section 263, proposing to revise the assessment order. The Pr. CIT alleged that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue due to the non-application of Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) or Section 50C to the purchase of a flat at Planet Godrej, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai, for Rs. 5,32,50,000/- when the stamp duty value was Rs. 5,91,49,665/-. The Pr. CIT's order dated 27/03/2025 set aside the AO's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order framed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B on 26.12.2022 for AY 2021-22 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, justifying the assumption of jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT under Section 263. Assessee's contention: The Pr. CIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263 and setting aside the assessment order. The transaction of purchasing the residential flat, which the Pr. CIT sought to examine under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) or Section 50C, occurred on 03.08.2021, falling in the previous year relevant to AY 2022-23, not AY 2021-22. Therefore, the Pr. CIT's action for AY 2021-22 is unjustified. Revenue's contention: The Pr. CIT contended that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as it failed to consider the differential amount between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration for the flat purchase, which should have been taxed under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B),Section 50C,Section 80IBA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HONBLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi, A/R
Hearing: 12/06/2025Pronounced: 17/06/2025

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Thane 1 [hereinafter “the ld. Pr. CIT"] dated 27/03/2025 framed u/s 263 of the Act.

2.

The grievance of the assessee is as under:- "

1.

The Hon. Pr. CIT erred in holding the order framed by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the I. Tax Act on 26.12.2022, to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and accordingly the assumption of jurisdiction by the Hon. Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the I.T Act, 1961 is unjustified and therefore not valid.

2.

The Hon. Pr. CIT erred in setting aside to the file of the assessing officer, the assessment framed u/s 143 (3) r.w.s.144B of the I. Tax Act, 1961 on 26.12.2022, by relying upon the provisions of sec. 263 of the I. Tax Act, 1961, directing the Id AO to examine the applicability of section 56(2)(x)(b)(B)/section 50C to the transaction of purchase of flat no.3602 at Planet Godrej, Mahalaxmi (E), Mumbai vide agreement dt.03.08.2021, when undisputedly the said transaction of purchase of residential flat does not fall in the previous year relevant to AY 2021-22 but falls in AY 2022-23 and therefore the Hon. Pr. CIT is in error in setting aside the assessment for AY 2021-22. The appellant prays that the order u/s 263 dt.29.03.2019 be held to be bad-in-law and quashed.

3.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or vary any of the grounds at any time before the decision of the appeal." Representatives of both the sides were heard at length, case records carefully perused and the relevant documentary evidence brought on record duly considered in the light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules, 1963. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Sab Realty engaged in real estate business. The assessee filed its return of income on 15/03/2022 declaring total income at Rs.4,20,31,010/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment and assessment order was framed on 26/12/2022 u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act after making an addition of Rs.6,03,81,465/- by disallowing the claim of deduction u/s 80IBA of the Act.

5.

Assuming jurisdiction conferred upon him by the provisions of Section 263 of the Act, the ld. Pr. CIT vide notice dated 06/03/2025, asked the assessee to showcause why the assessment order dated 26/12/2022 be not treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The showcause notice reads as under:- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PCIT, Thane-1 India To, JOHAR HASAN ZOJWALLA PAN: AAAPZ5650K

Assessment Year: 2021-22 Dated: 06/03/2025 DIN & Notice No: ITBA/COM/F/17/2024-25/1074123861(1) Sir/Madam/ M/s, Subject: Proceeding u/s 263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 - Notice Sub: Show-cause u/s.263 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2021-22-reg.. Please refer to the above.

2.

In this case, return of income was filed on 15.03.2022 declaring total income at Rs.4,20,31,010/-. Assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the I.T. Act was passed by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) on 26.12.2022 for A.Y.2021-22 assessing total income at Rs.10,50,09,385/-.

3.

On perusal of records, it is seen that you have purchased a residential property being Flat No.3602 at Planet Godrej, Mahalaxmi East, Mumbai at a consideration of Rs.5,32,50,000/- whereas the Market Value of the property determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority is Rs.5,91,49,665/-. As per Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, if the stamp duty value exceeds the consideration amount by more than 10% of the consideration, the differential amount is chargeable to income tax under the head 'Income from Other Sources'.

4.

The purchase price of the property is for Rs.5,32,50,000/- while the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority is at Rs.5,91,49,665/-. i. Stamp Duty Value Rs.5,91,49,665/- ii. Sale Value Consideration Rs.5,32,50,000/- iii. 10% of the Consideration Rs.53,25,000/- iv. Sale Value Consideration+ 10% of consideration (ii + iii) Rs.5,85,75,000/- Thus, Stamp Duty Value of Rs.5,91,49,665/- is more Rs.5,85,75,000/- (i.e.10% of consideration plus sale value consideration ). In view of these facts, the difference between the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority and actual consideration in respect of the said property works out to Rs.58,99,665/- (5,91,49,665 – 5,32,50,000) which was to be added to your total income u/s.56(2)(x)(b)(B) of the Act, under the head 'Income from Other Sources'.

5.

Keeping in view the aforementioned facts, assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the I.T. Act dated 26.12.2022 for A.Y.2021-22 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the same has resulted in underassessment of income and short levy of tax. Therefore, your case is proposed to be revised u/s.263 of the Act.

6.

In view of the above facts, you are given an opportunity to furnish your explanation on the above issue within 7 days of the receipt of this show-cause notice, alongwith all the relevant documentary evidences that you may wish to rely upon. You may submit your explanation through digital mode or on the official e-mail address of this Office i.e. thane.pcit1@ incometax.gov.in on or before the aforementioned date, which will be duly considered before finalization of the proceedings in your case. In case no compliance/submission is made on or before the said date, decision will be taken on merit as per the material available on record. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SUNIL KUMAR PCIT, Thane-1 (In case the document is digitally signed please refer Digital Signature at the bottom of the page)

6.

We have given a thoughtful consideration to the aforementioned showcause notice. After going through the facts on record, we are of the considered view that the ld. Pr. CIT has assumed jurisdiction on wrong appreciation of facts. The impugned property was purchased by the assessee on 03/08/2021 falling in FY 2021-22 relevant to AY 2022-23 whereas the impugned assessment year is AY 2021-22. 7. All the apprehensions raised by the ld. Pr. CIT in justifying that the assessment order dated 26/12/2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue may be relevant for AY 2022-23 and not for the year under consideration. Since the assumption of jurisdiction is based upon wrong appreciation of facts, we have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order of the ld. Pr. CIT dated 27/03/2025 and restore that of the AO dated 26/12/2022. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 17th June, 2025 at Mumbai. Mumbai, Dated 17/06/2025 आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →