“Section 56(2)(3)”

DILIP TALAKSHI VORA,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-20, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdilip Talakshi Vora Vs. Principal Commissioner 3102, Spring Mills, Island Of Income Tax-20, City Centre, G.D. Room No. 418, 4 Th Floor, Ambekar Marg Near Piramal Chambers, Wadala Telephone Lal Baug, Parel, Exchange, Dadar (East) Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai – 400014 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabpv0804C Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Paresh Shaparia Respondent By : Riddhi Mishra Date Of Hearing 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.10.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Pr.Cit(A), Mumbai-20, Dated 24.03.2023 For A.Y. 2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “I. Order Passed U/S 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. The Ld. Pr.Cit Erred On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case In Passing The Order U/S 263 Which Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld Pr.Cit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 By Setting Aside Ao'S Order & Directing To Inquire Into The Claim Both In Terms Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Ld Pr. Cit Erred In Treating The Order Passed By Ao. U/S 143(3) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue In Relation To Purchase Of Property I.E Flat No. E-601 At Ambe Shraddha Kamothe In Panvel (Herein Referred As Said Flat) For Applicability Of Section 56(2)(X) & Section 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

interest of revenue. 6. The order passed u/s 263 is bad in law and requires to be quashed II. PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)(3) NOT APPLICABLE TO STOCK-IN- TRADE 1. The Ld Pr.CIT erred applying the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) to the appellant in relation