Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, Anil Agrawal, filed an ITR for AY 2018-19 declaring an income of Rs. 7,95,750. He purchased a property for Rs. 18,00,000 but paid stamp duty on a market value of Rs. 46,33,000 as determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority. The PCIT(C) passed an order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The judgment provided only the facts and the grounds of appeal, but not the tribunal's decision. Therefore, it is not possible to determine what the tribunal decided from the provided text.
Key Issues
The key legal issue is the validity of the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically whether the conditions mentioned in Explanation 2 of Section 263 were satisfied.
Sections Cited
Section 263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM
Assessment Year : 2018-19 Anil Agrawal, Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Ward No. 9 Sakti Budhwari Bazar, Tax Central Circle, Bilaspur, Shri Janjgir-Champa, Ram Plaza, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495689 Chhattisgarh, 495001 PAN: AHEPA2614B ( आवेदक / Applicant ) : ( ""थ" / Respondent ) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee by : Ms. Namrata Kayarwar, C.A. राज" की ओर से / Revenue by : Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of : 0 5.0 2.2 0 2 6 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R
Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM:
This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2018-19 filed by the assessee is directed against the order, dated 08.03.2025, passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’) by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal [‘PCIT(C)’]. Further, the assessee has also file a Stay Application (‘SA’) with request to S.A. No. 03/RPR/2025 stay the consequential assessment proceedings initiated in pursuance of the order passed under section 263 of the Act by the Ld. PCIT(C).
The appellant assessee vide sole ground, read as “The order passed by the PCIT is bad in law, passed without satisfying the conditions mentioned in explanation 2 of the sec 263”, has challenged the validity of the impugned order.
The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant assessee filed his original Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) of the relevant year on 29.12.2018 declaring income of Rs.7,95,750/-. The assessee had bought a property; i.e. the land admeasuring 0.405 Hectare having Khasra No.1291/2 Sakti Tehsil for Rs.18,00,000/-; however, he had paid stamp duty on the market value of Rs.46,33,000/- the said property determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority/Sub