ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE 8(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

Tata Housing Development Company Limited “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding the order dated 27.06.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the IT Act as infructuous, following the Hon'ble ITAT decision to quash order u/s.263 of the IT Act and thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee, without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer has not made any specific /not called for any details regarding "notional flats lying unsold in the assessee's closing stock" and the issue remained unexplained? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding the order dated 27.06.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the IT Act as infructuous, following the Hon'ble ITAT decision to quash order u/s.263 of the IT Act and thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee, without appreciating the fact that in light of explanation 2 to the Section 263 of the IT Act, any order passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made is deemed to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding the order dated 27.06.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the IT Act as infructuous, ignoring the ratio of Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in the case of Ansal Housing & Finance leasing Co. Ltd (354 ITR 180) which is applicable to the facts to this case? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding the order dated 27.06.2019 passed w/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the IT Act as infructuous, which is passed on the basis of order u/s.263 of the Act which is a valid order and is the lawful application of the provisions of the stated section in view of the factual matrix of the case?”