SHEELA GOYAL,CHANDIGARH vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH

The Id. CIT is wrong in passing revision order u/s 263 by setting-aside the assessment order and directing the assessing officer to pass fresh assessment order, without appreciating the fact that during the course of assessment, the then Id. assessing officer did not issue notice u/s 143(2) to the assessee and passed assessment order just for the sake of completing the assessment admitted by the Id. A.O. himself, so passing of assessment order without issuing notice u/s 143(2) is a void-ab-initio order as per the judgment of Hon'ble SC in the case of ACIT vs Hotel Blue Moon: 321 ITR 362, therefore, question of revision u/s 263 of void-ab-initio assessment order does not arise at all. 2. The Id. CIT is wrong in passing revision order u/s 263 by setting-aside the assessment order and directing the assessing officer to pass fresh assessment order, without appreciating the fact that the Id. assessing officer can not issue any notice u/s 143(2) to the assessee, as the same was already time barred on 30.06.2023, so passing of revision order u/s 263 by Id. CIT and directing for fresh assessment is an infructuous exercise, because id. A.O. cannot pass valid assessment order without issuing notice u/s 143(2), as same has already become time barred on 30.06.2023. 690-Chd-2025

The Id. CIT is wrong in passing revision order u/s 263 by setting-aside the assessment order and directing the assessing officer to pass fresh assessment order, without appreciating the fact that the assessment order was passed without authority of law, as the assessment order was required to be passed by the faceless assessing officer, and the same was duly admitted by the id. juri ictional assessing officer in the assessment order itself, so assessment order passed by the Id. juri ictional assessing officer is without authority of law and void-ab-initio order, therefore, question of revision u/s 263 of void-ab-initio assessment order does not arise at all. 4. The Id. CIT is wrong in passing revision order u/s 263 by setting-aside the assessment order merely on suspicion basis and directing the assessing officer to examine the cash receipt of Rs. 17,00,000, ignoring the undisputed fact that the Id. A.O. made requisite enquiry or verification and further, copy of sale agreement is duly on record to the file of Id. assessing officer and mere absence of notarization or registration of sale agreement does not render the sale agreement invalid and moreover, there is no contrary evidence on record to the file of Id. CIT to establish that cash receipt is an ingenuine.

The Id. CIT is wrong in passing revision order u/s 263 by setting-aside the assessment order and directing the assessing officer to examine the source of stamp duty of Rs. 7,71,000 from the assessee, without appreciating the fact that the amount of stamp duty was paid by the seller named M/s Skyz Life Sciences Pvt ltd. and not by the assessee, as clear from the copy of sale deed itself which is a part of the assessment record, so question of enquiring the source of payment of stamp duty of Rs. 7,71,000 from the assessee is not applicable, as stamp duty was paid by the seller M/s Skyz Life Sciences Pvt Ltd and not the Assessee, therefore, revision u/s 263 is invalid in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed. 3. Brief facts of the case, as per the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under: The brief facts of the case are that the Return of Income (Rol) was filed by the assessee for the year under consideration on 17.10.2016, declaring a loss of Rs. 21,615/- Thereafter, the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were invoked in this case to verify the source of investment of Rs.7,71,00,000/- made by the assessee for purchase of immovable property during the F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee,

Later on, the ld. PCIT Chandigarh-1, started the proceedings u/s 263 by issuance of notice. The Assessee filed its detailed reply on each issue. The Ld. CIT, Chandigarh-1 after taking into consideration the detailed reply filed by the Assessee gave his findings as under: “2. On examination of assessment records, it is noticed that the Assessee had made investment in purchase of property for a sum of Rs. 1,54,20,000/- (20% of Rs. 7,71,00,000/-) and while giving explanation for the source of investment during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has stated that out of the above amount, a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- was received in cash from sale of plot at Ecocity, Village Mullanpur, Teh-Kharar. A careful perusal of the records shows that for this cash receipt of Rs. 17,00,000/-, only a sale agreement has been provided at the time

The Assessee has filed appeal before us against the order / revocation of section 263 by the PCIT. 6. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee brought it on record that in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 31.3.2023, it has been clearly mentioned as under: - “2.1 In response the assessee furnished the relevant details and documents related to the source of investment made of Rs. 1,54,20,000/- (20% of Rs. 7,71,00,000/-) for purchase of property on 05.05.2015 situated at house no 141 plot no 36-P, street B, sector 28-A, Chandigarh, which are duly examined and duly placed on record. Copy of purchase deed is also placed on record. Since the assessee has provided the relevant document with regard to the source of investment mentioned above with documentary evidence, the original return filed in response to notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2021 declaring loss of Rs. 21,025/- on 17.10.2016 is hereby accepted.”

The ld. Counsel for the Assessee discussed various case laws including Delhi Bench decision in ‘Krishan Kumar Saraf vs CIT’, [2017] 83 taxmnn.com 331(Delhi) order dated 24.9.2015 and ‘ACIT & Anr vs M/s Hotel Blue