M/S DIPIN BHAVARLAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. PCIT-20, MUMBAI

The learned Pr. CIT The learned Pr. CIT-20, Mumbai ("the PCIT") erred in PCIT") erred in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The PCIT ought to have appreciated Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The PCIT ought to have appreciated Act, 1961 ("the Act"). The PCIT ought to have appreciated that the learned AO had duly made inquiries and that the learned AO had duly made inquiries and that the learned AO had duly made inquiries and verification during the assessment proceedings in respect verification during the assessment proceedings in respect verification during the assessment proceedings in respect of the property pur of the property purchased by the appellant. Invoking of Invoking of provisions of section 263 of the Act is against the provisions of section 263 of the Act is against the provisions of section 263 of the Act is against the provisions of law, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction; provisions of law, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction; provisions of law, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction; 2. The PCIT erred in passing the order u/s.263 of the Act The PCIT erred in passing the order u/s.263 of the Act The PCIT erred in passing the order u/s.263 of the Act without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard without providing reasonable opportunity of being without providing reasonable opportunity of being to the appellant. The order passed u/s.263 of the Act is to the appellant. The order passed u/s.263 of the Act is to the appellant. The order passed u/s.263 of the Act is against the principles of natural justice and is bad-in- against the principles of natural justice and is bad against the principles of natural justice and is bad law; 3. Without prejudice to above, the PCIT ought to have Without prejudice to above, the PCIT ought to have Without prejudice to above, the PCIT ought to have appreciated that the addition cannot be made in the A.Y. appreciated that the addition cannot be made in the A.Y. appreciated that the addition cannot be made in the A.Y. 2018-19 as the appellant 19 as the appellant have purchased the said have purchased the said property in AY. 2017 property in AY. 2017-18. And the same is evident from 18. And the same is evident from the Deed of Transfer for Purchase of said property. the Deed of Transfer for Purchase of said property. the Deed of Transfer for Purchase of said property. Invoking of provision of section 263 of the Act against the Invoking of provision of section 263 of the Act against the Invoking of provision of section 263 of the Act against the Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y. 2018- Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y. 2018 Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) for the A.Y. 2018 19 is illega 19 is illegal, void and bad-in-law; 2. Before us, the Ld. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to Ground for the assessee referred to Ground No. 2 of the appeal and submitted that adequate opportunity of No. 2 of the appeal and submitted that adequate opportunity of No. 2 of the appeal and submitted that adequate opportunity of being heard was not was not provided to the assessee, which being in which being in violation of the principle of natural just violation of the principle of natural justice, matter might be restored matter might be restored back for deciding afresh. back for deciding afresh.