SHRI NEERAJ PURI,DEHRADUN vs. PR. CIT, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 984/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 January 2019AY 2011-126 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest because the Assessing Officer failed to investigate the discrepancy between the property's classification as stock-in-trade and its treatment as a capital asset. Therefore, the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee showed a property sale under capital gains, but the property was listed as closing stock in the previous year's balance sheet. The Assessing Officer accepted the capital gains without specific inquiry.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was valid when the Assessing Officer accepted capital gains on a property wrongly classified as stock-in-trade without proper inquiry.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLEShri Neeraj Puri

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, Adv
Hearing: 15.01.2019Pronounced: 16.01.2019

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

With this appeal, the assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] by the ld. PCIT, Dehradun.

2.

The assessee alleges that the order dated 18.01.206 framed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. PCIT, Dehradun is bad in law.

3.

It is the say of the ld. AR that during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had made necessary enquiries in respect of property sold and has accepted the long term capital gains shown by the assessee on the sale of the said property. The ld. AR pointed out that due to an inadvertent mistake, the property has been shown as closing stock as on 31.03.2010, whereas the same was investment. The ld. AR further pointed out that the assessee was filing return of income under presumptive tax and, therefore, was not maintaining any books of account and the balance sheet was only prepared for internal use. The ld. AR concluded by saying that the assessment order dated 26.11.2013 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, and, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is bad in law.

4.

Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the ld. PCIT.

5.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., 243 ITR 83, has laid down the following ratio:-

"A bare reading of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent—if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue— recourse cannot be had to section 263( 1) of the Act. The provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is erroneous that the be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous'.

6.

All that we have to see if that whether the twin conditions have been fulfilled or not, which means that the assessment order should not only be erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is true that in the balance sheet for the year ending 31.03.2010 the assessee has shown the following properties as stock in trade:

Sl. No. Particulars of Property Value 1. K. Colony Rs. 4,49,000 2. Sahastradhara Rpad Rs. 6,99,320 3. Bhagirath [Dilaram] ½ Rs. 27,64,582 4. Malsi Rs. 15,00,000 5. Total Rs. 54,13,002

7.

During the year under consideration, the assessee has sold Property Malsi for a consideration of Rs. 15 lakhs and the gains arising out of the said property has been shown under the head ‘Capital Gains’. The balance sheet may have been prepared for some internal use, but the fact of the matter is that, the property has been shown as stock in trade. We find that while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has completely ignored this fact, which resulted in appreciation of wrong facts by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, the assessee could not demonstrate by bringing any cogent material evidence on record that the properties were, in fact, investment made by the assessee and have been wrongly shown as stock in trade. Without making any specific enquiry on this aspect, the Assessing Officer has accepted the capital gains returned by the assessee, which makes the assessment order not only erroneous but prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. PCIT. Accordingly, order framed u/s 263 is upheld.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 16.01.2019.

More judgments on Section 263

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →