Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: due date for vat payment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: cpt :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
 
 
From the Courts »
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a

Maya Gupta, 52/79, Ramjas Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi.
July, 09th 2015
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

                IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                       DELHI BENCH `E' NEW DELHI

           BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                                AND
           SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                               I.T.A.No.5701/Del/2014
                                  Asstt.Year: 2009-10

Maya Gupta,                     vs    Commissioner of Income Tax,
52/79, Ramjas Road,                   Central-II, New Delhi.
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi.
(PAN: AAMPG7019F)
(Appellant)                             (Respondent)
      Appellant by: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Shri Ashwani Taneja, Advocate
    Respondent by : Shri Gunjan Prashad, CIT DR
                              Date of Hearing: 29.06.2015
                        Date of pronouncement: 08/07/2015

                                  ORDER


PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

       This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A),

Central-II, New Delhi dated 06.03.2014 for AY 2009-10 passed u/s 263 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) in respect of assessment order dated

28.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) r/w section 153 of the Act. The grounds raised by

the assessee read as under:-


              "1. That on facts and in law the Commissioner of
        Income Tax, Central-II, New Delhi {hereinafter referred to as
        the "CIT"} erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act.


                                         1
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

               2. That on facts and in law the CIT erred in
        holding/observing that the original order of assessment dated
        281h December 2011 is erroneous /prejudicial to the interest
        of revenue on following counts:
                a. Allowing deduction u/s 24(b) of the Income Tax Act.
              b. Not considering for taxation alleged income of Rs 1
        cr being alleged unaccounted payment for purchase of
        property no. 56/7 DB Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
              c. Not making a reference to valuation cell for verifying
        the sale consideration of other properties sold by the
        appellant during the year under consideration.
               c. Failure to conduct necessary / proper enquiry and
        verification on issues mentioned above.
               3. That on facts and in law the CIT erred in assuming
        jurisdiction to pass revisional order u/s 263 on issues, which
        were subject matter of appeal.
              4. That on facts and in law the CIT erred in selling aside
        the order of assessment dated 28th December 2011 for a de
        novo adjudication on issues mentioned above."
2.     Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that a search and

seizure operation was carried out in Mahesh Mehta group of cases on

30.6.2009. During the course of search at the residential premises at BA-17A,

DDA Flats, Phase-I, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, certain documents belonging to the

assessee were found and seized. On the basis of said documents so seized and

after recording satisfaction, proceedings u/s 153C of the Act were initiated and

the notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued on 21.6.2011. In response to the

same, the assessee had filed a letter stating that the assessee has already filed

her return which may be treated as filed u/s 153C of the Act. The assessment

u/s 143(3) r/w section 153C of the Act was completed on 28.12.2011 by the

                                         2
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

AO, Central Circle-3, New Delhi at the returned income of Rs.1,48,26,520

which was declared in the original return filed on 25.3.2010.


3.     Subsequently, on examination of assessment records, the CIT observed

that the assessment order passed by the AO dated 28.12.2011 (supra) is

erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue to the extent that

assessment was completed without proper examination, inquiry and verification

on three issues viz. claim of interest expenses amounting to Rs.6,36,111/-, issue

of transaction of Rs.1 crore with regard to property purchased by the assessee

jointly with her husband from M/s Honest Estates Pvt. Ltd. and issue of capital

gain out of which Rs.1 crore was diverted from capital gain to income from

other sources.


4.     The assessee was asked to show cause as to why in the light of facts

contained in the show cause notice dated 18.2.2014, assessment order dated

28.12.2011 may not be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of

revenue as per provisions of section 263 of the Act.


5.     In response to the said notice, the assessee filed written submissions

through the AR vide letter dated 3.3.2014. After considering the submissions

and reply of the assessee, the CIT held that the AO has failed to conduct proper

inquiry and verification on the issues contained in the show cause notice. The

CIT finally held that the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r/w section 153C of

the Act dated 28.12.2011 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue
                                        3
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

and the CIT invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act set aside assessment

order with the direction to the AO to frame the assessment order after proper

examination, inquiry and verification on all three issues. Being aggrieved by

the above revision order of CIT u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee is before this

Tribunal in this appeal with the grounds as reproduced hereinabove.


6.     We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused relevant

material placed on record, inter alia original assessment order dated 28.12.2011

(supra), impugned order of the CIT passed u/s 263 of the Act, assessee's paper

book spread over 205 pages and judgements and citations relied by both the

parties.




7.     Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the only issue in this appeal is

against the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. CIT, which

according to the appellant assessee was not in accordance with law and valid.

Ld. counsel of the assessee has also filed written submissions which are being

reproduced below for the sake of brevity and clarity in our observations and

conclusion:-


                 "SMT. MAYA GUPTA
                  The only issue in this appeal is against the assumption of
           jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. CIT, which according to the
           appellant, was not in accordance with law.
                 Ld. CIT assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 on the following
           grounds on which AO during the course of assessment
           proceeding has applied his mind and has taken a conscious
           decision which can not be said to be erroneous merely because
                                           4
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

        Ld. CIT holds otherwise in view of umpteen number of judicial
        decisions including the decisions which say that absence of
        enquiry and not inadequate enquiry can be the ground of
        holding an order as erroneous.
        Proceeding under section 263
        PB 188-190 is the copy of notice u/s 263 giving the show cause
        in respect of three issues.
        PB 191-194 is the reply furnished by the assessee in response to
        notice u/s 263 submitting inter alia that there was no error nor
        any prejudice.
               Scope of section 263 - Revising authority feeling inquiry
        inadequate -Revising authority must make enquiry and show
        that assessment order was erroneous-Revising authority has no
        power to remand and direct Assessing Officer to conduct
        enquiry-income-tax Act, 1961, s. 263 -DIT vs. Jyoti Foundation
        357 ITR 388 (Delhi)
              Lack of proper enquiry-in cases where there is
        inadequate enquiry by the AO and not lack of enquiry, CIT must
        give and record a finding that the order / enquiry made is
        erroneous before passing an order under s. 263-Matter cannot
        be remitted for a fresh decision to the AO to conduct further
        enquiries without a finding that the order is erroneous-ITO vs.
        DG Housing Projects Ltd. 74 DTR 153 (Del.)
               Lack of proper enquiry-Assessee having given complete
        details of the provisions of warranty in response to the query
        raised by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings
        and regarding claim of deduction under s. 35DDA AO accepted
        the assessee's claim after examining the same, order under s.
        263 passed by the CIT cannot be sustained -CIT vs. Hero Auto
        Ltd. 74 DTR 164 (Del.)
              Power of commissioner -Assessment after enquiry-No
        error in order-Order cannot be revised on ground enquiry
        should have been more detailed-income-tax Act, 1961, s. 263-
        CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing And Advertising Co. Ltd.
        3411TR 180 (Delhi)




                                       5
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

                Revision-Commissioner conceding Assessing Officer
        making inquiries, eliciting replies before treating expenses as
        revenue expenditure-Not a case of lack of inquiry- Department
        accepting accounting practice followed by assessee for past
        years and future-Revision questioning accounting practice not
        justified-CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 332 ITR 167 (Delhi)
        243 ITR 83(SC)
              Following pleadings and evidences would support the
        case of the appellant:-
                1) Deduction on account of interest was allowed u/s 24
        against the 'income from house property' though requisite
        certificate in terms of section 24(b) was not filed by the
        assessee.
              PB 6-10 is the copy of computation of income,
        acknowledgment of return for A.Y. 2009-10, in which the
        assessee has shown deduction u/s 24 from the income from
        house property'.
               PB 11-14 is the copy of questionnaire dated 30.06.2011
        issued by Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment proceeding
        to show that Ld A.O. asked question relating to details of all
        properties and investment made, utilization of money, loans
        taken.
                PB 15-16 is the copy of assessee's submissions dated
        15.11.2011 filed to Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment
        submitting the copy of bank accounts, statements of assets and
        liabilities, confirmation of loan.
               PB 152-153 is further submissions dated 02.12.2011 field
        to td. A.O. during the course of assessment proceeding
        submitting the copy of bank accounts, and further submitting
        about the loan from HDFC bank and about the payment of
        interest on housing loan.
              PB 156-157 is further submission of the assessee dated
        05.12.2011 filed during the course of assessment proceeding
        again submitting about the claim of the interest of housing loan.
             PB 158 is the copy of HDFC bank statement showing the
        amount of interest.


                                        6
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

             2) On the issue of Rs. 2 Crores as alleged unaccounted
        payment
               PB 183-187 is the copy of assessment order passed u/s
        143(3) I 153C with prior approval of Additional CIT, and a
        plain reading of this order would clearly show that the issue of
        Rs. 2 Crore was clearly discussed and mind was applied and a
        conscious decision was taken and capital gain income was
        brought to tax and so much so nature of part of the capital gain
        was changed from capital gain to income from other sources.
               PB 1-5 is the copy of the statement recorded of the
        husband of the appellant during the course of survey in which
        the husband of the appellant was clearly asked about the details
        of various properties and consideration received and also about
        the purchase of Property No. 56/7, DB Gupta Road, Karol Bag,
        New Delhi and sale of Property No. 783/161, DB Gupta Road,
        Karol Bag, New Delhi in which the appellant's husband clearly
        stated that amount of Rs. 2 Crore to be paid by the assessee's
        husband was never paid but were retained by Mr. Mehta to be
        set off against the payment of Rs. 2 Crore, which he was to
        make.
              It is important to submit that this statement was taken on
        oath and was considered by Ld. A.O. vide passing the impugned
        assessment order.
              PB 6-10 is the copy of computation of income,
        acknowledgment of return for A. Y. 2009-10, in which the
        assessee has shown calculation of capital gain on the sale of
        Property No. 7821161, DB Gupta Road, New Delhi and other
        properties
               PB 11-14 is the copy of questionnaire dated 30.06.2011
        issued by Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment proceeding
        to show that Ld A.O. asked question relating to search of Mr.
        Mehta, details of all bank accounts of the assessee, details of all
        properties and investment made, utilization of money, and is
        specifically about the purchase of Property No. 56/7, D.B.
        Gupta Road, Karol Bag, New Delhi involving the alleged
        unaccounted payment of Rs. 2 Crore
               PB 15-16 is the copy of assessee's submissions dated
        15.11.2011 filed to Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment
        submitting the copy of bank accounts, statements of assets and

                                         7
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

        liabilities, note on the property purchased i.e. 56/7, DB Gupta
        Road, fact of sale of three properties and furnishing sale deed
              PB 17-73, 87-126 are the copies of purchase/sale deed of
        both the properties 56/7, 783/161 DB Gupta Road, Karol Bag
        New Delhi
              PB 152-153 is further submissions dated 02.12.2011 field
        to Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment proceeding
        submitting the copy of bank accounts, affidavit of the assessee
        in respect of additional income in respect of sale of Property
        No. 783/161, DB Gupta Road, Karol Bag new Delhi, & further
        submitting about the loan from HDFC bank and about the
        payment of interest on housing loan.
               PB 154-155 is the copy of affidavit of the assessee filed
        during the course of assessment proceeding before Ld. A.O.,
        inter alia, submitting that undisclosed investment of Rs. 2 Crore
        made by the assessee in Purchase of 56/7, DB Gupta Road,
        Karol Bag, New Delhi was retained by Mr. Mehta against the
        unaccounted sale consideration of Rs. 2 Crore to be received in
        respect of sale of Property No. 7831161, DB Gupta Road, Karol
        Bag, New Delhi
              PB 156-157 is further submission of the assessee dated
        05.12.2011 filed during the course of assessment proceeding
        again submitting about the adjustment of Rs. 2 Crore made by
        Mr. Mehta.
              PB 181-182 is the copy of order sheet entries showing the
        proceedings before Ld. A.O. and specific query regarding the
        adjustment of Rs. 2 Crore
                3) Sale of other properties
               PB 183-187 is the copy of assessment order passed u/s
        143(3) / 153C with prior approval of Additional CIT, and a
        plain reading of this order would clearly show that the issue of
        Rs. 2 Crore was clearly discussed and mind by applied and a
        decision was taken and capital gain income was brought to tax
        and so much so nature of part of the capital gain was changed
        from capital gain to income from other sources.
              PB 6-10 is the copy of computation of income,
        acknowledgment of return for A.Y. 2009-10, in which the
        assessee has shown calculation of capital gain on the sale of
                                         8
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

        Property No. 7821161, DB Gupta Road, New Delhi and other
        properties
              PB 11-14 is the copy of questionnaire dated 30.06.2011
        issued by Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment proceeding
        to show that Ld A.O. asked question relating to all bank
        accounts of the assessee, details of all properties and
        investment made, utilization of money.
                PB 15-16 is the copy of assessee's submissions dated
        15.11.2011 filed to Ld. A.O. during the course of assessment
        submitting the copy of bank accounts, statements of assets and
        liabilities, note on the property purchased i.e. 56/7, DB Gupta
        Road, confirmation of loan fact of sale of three properties and
        furnishing sale deeds.
               PB 1-5 is the copy of the statement recorded of the
        husband of the appellant during the course of survey in which
        the husband of the appellant was clearly asked about the details
        of various properties and consideration received.
              It is important to submit that this statement was taken on
        oath and was considered by Ld. A.O. vide passing the impugned
        assessment order.
              PB 74-86 and PB 127-151 are the copies of sale deeds in
        respect of two other properties sold by the assessee filed to Ld.
        A.O. during the assessment proceedings.
              PB 159, 160, 161 are the copies of summons dated
        25.11.2011 sent by Ld. A.O. to the buyers of Property No.
        7831160 and 783/162.
               PB 162-163, 164-180 is the copy of reply dated
        01.12.2011 filed by Mrs. Anita Chabra to Ld. A.O. in response
        to the summon confirming the purchase of         Property No.
        7831160, DB Gupta Road, New Delhi and giving various
        details / source and filing the copies of bank statements, her
        PPF account, PNB salary account, copy of income tax return
        filed by her etc.
              PB 181-182 is the copy of order sheet entries showing the
        proceedings before Ld. A.O. and specific query regarding the
        adjustment of Rs. 2 Crore



                                        9
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

               There is no such mandate in law that a property be
        referred for valuation for determining the sale consideration
        and following are the decisions which say that capital gains is
        to be calculated with reference to the actual sale consideration,
        and not on the basis of valuation put by the valuation officer.
              - Valuation of property-Reference of Departmental
        Valuation Officer for valuation of investment -Additional solely
        on basis of valuation report-Not permissible-Income tax Act,
        1961-CIT vs. Lahsa Construction P. Ltd. 3571TR 671 (Delhi)
               - S. 69B-Unexplained investment-Investment in property-
        No evidence that extra consideration received-Addition to
        income based solely on report of District Valuation Officer -Not
        valid- CIT vs. Sadhna Gupta 352 ITR 595 (Delhi)
               4) The impugned assessment order was passed with prior
        approval of an higher authority i.e. Additional Commissioner in
        terms of section 153D and therefore in view of the following
        judicial decisions, jurisdiction could not be assumed u/s 263
             Goyal Iron & Steel Works (India) vs. Commissioner of
        Income Tax* (2002) 76 TTJ(Agra) 578
              Mehta Cut Piece Cloth House vs. Income Tax Officer
        (1985) 23 TT J (CHD) 211
              Income Tax Officer vs. Arora Alloys Ltd. (2011) 12 ITR
        (Trib) 263 (Chd)
8.     Ld. counsel of the assessee during argument before us reiterated and

elaborated the above written submissions and submitted that the issue of claim

of deduction on account of interest was allowed u/s 24 of the Act against the

"income from house property" and was disputed by the CIT by observing that

the same is not allowable as per third proviso to section 24B of the Act as the

assessee had not furnished required certificate from the party or parties to whom

this amount of interest was paid. Ld. counsel took us through paper book page

no. 6 to 16 and 152 to 158 of the assessee and submitted that as per computation

                                       10
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

of income and acknowledgement of return, it is clear that the assessee has shown

deduction u/s 24 of the Act from the income from house property. Ld. counsel

further submitted that in response to questionnaire dated 30.6.2011 issued by the

AO, the assessee submitted detailed reply on 15.11.2011 along with copies of

bank account, statement of assets and liabilities and confirmation of loan. Ld.

counsel has also drawn our attention towards paper book page no. 152 to 158

and submitted that in further submissions dated 2.12.2011, the assessee filed

copies of bank accounts about the loan from HDFC Bank and payment of

interest on housing loan and also copy of HDFC Bank showing the amount of

interest paid against housing loan by the assessee. Ld. counsel submitted that on

the issue of interest claimed, the assessee properly explained and established the

claim as per provisions of the Act which was wrongly disputed by the CIT and

explanation in this regard was not properly considered by the CIT.


9.     Ld. counsel of the assessee, on the issue of unaccounted payment of Rs. 2

crore has drawn our attention towards paper book page no. 1 to 73, 87 to 126,

152 to 157 and 181-182 and submitted that the impugned assessment order

passed u/s 143(3) r/w section 153C of the Act was passed with prior approval of

ACIT.     On plain reading of this order, it is clear that the issue of Rs. 2 crore

alleged unaccounted payment was clearly discussed with due application of

mind and a conscious decision was taken while bringing capital gain income to

tax and the nature of part of capital gain was changed from capital gain to


                                        11
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

income from other sources on justified basis. Ld. counsel further pointed out in

the statement recorded during the course of survey, the husband of the assessee

was asked about the details of various properties and consideration received and

also about the purchase or property wherein the assessee's husband clearly

stated that the amount of Rs.2 crore to be paid by the assessee's husband was

never paid but was retained by Mr. Mehta to be set off against the payment of

Rs.2 crore which he was to make. Ld. counsel vehemently contended that this

statement of assessee's husband was recorded on oath and was properly

considered by the AO while passing the impugned assessment order.            Ld.

counsel submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee

submitted calculation of capital gain on sale of property No. 782/161, DB Gupta

Road, New Delhi, supported by details of all bank accounts of the assessee,

details of all properties and investment made, utilisation of money and specially

about the purchase of property no. 56/7, DB Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New

Delhi involving the alleged unaccounted payment of Rs. 2 crore. Ld. counsel

vehemently contended that in the written submission dated 2.12.2011, the

assessee filed copies of bank account, affidavit of the assessee in respect of

additional income from sale of property no. 783/161 DB Gupta Road, Karol

Bagh, New Delhi and also the details of loan from HDFC Bank and payment of

interest on housing loan.    Ld. counsel finally submitted that the issue of

transaction of Rs.2 crore was properly considered and adjudicated by the AO as



                                       12
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

per facts and circumstances of the case after due application of mind and proper

appreciation of the submission and evidence of the assessee in this regard.


10.    In respect of last issue of sale consideration of other properties, ld.

counsel of the assessee has further drawn our attention towards relevant pages of

paper book of the assessee and submitted that in the impugned assessment order

which was passed by the AO with prior approval of the ACIT, it is clear that the

issue of Rs.2 crore was properly discussed and mind was applied, therefore, a

conscious decision was taken and capital gain income was brought to tax and so

much so, the nature of part of capital gain was changed from capital gain to

income from other sources. Ld. counsel of the assessee has further pointed out

that in reply to questionnaire dated 30.6.2011, the assessee submitted copies of

all bank accounts, details of all properties and investment made and utilization

of money with detailed submissions dated 15.11.2011 filed to the AO. Ld.

counsel also submitted that the statement of assessee's husband recorded during

the course of survey was also considered while adjudicating this issue. The ld.

counsel also pointed out that in reply to summons dated 25.11.2011, Mrs. Anita

Chabra filed reply on 1.12.2011 confirming the purchase of property no.

783/160, CB Gupta Road, New Delhi along with various relevant details, source

of funds supported by copies of bank statement, PPF account, PNB salary

account and copy of income tax return filed by her. Therefore, the impugned

assessment order was passed after due application of mind on this issue and the


                                       13
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

CIT was not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act for revising the

assessment order and directing the AO to re-frame the assessment after

verification and examination of the return of the assessee.





11.    Ld. DR supporting the issuance of notice and impugned order passed u/s

263 of the Act submitted that as per contents of the notice dated 18.2.2014

issued to the assessee u/s 263 of the Act, it is amply clear that the order of the

AO was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to the interest of revenue

because the AO failed to conduct proper inquiry in respect to three issues viz.

deduction of Rs.6,36,111 which was not allowable as per third proviso to section

24(b) of the Act, the second issue of Rs. 1 crore being unaccounted cash

payment on purchase of property no.56/7, Deshbandhu Gutpa Road, Karol

Bagh, New Delhi was not considered for taxation and third and last issue

wherein the AO completed the assessment proceedings without making any

inquiries/investigation on the issue of capital gain/income accrued to the

assessee along with her husband. Ld. DR elaborately took us through the

contents of the notice u/s 263 of the Act (supra) and submitted that in view of

ratio of the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of

Duggal & Co. vs CIT (1996) 220 ITR 456 (Del), the CIT(A) was competent to

exercise his power u/s 263 of the Act where the ITO/AO while allowing

deduction for interest and on other issues omitted to inquire into the matter in a

proper way.


                                        14
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

12.    Ld. DR has also drawn our attention towards operative para 5.1 to 7 of the

impugned order and submitted that from the discussion therein, it is clear that

the AO has failed to conduct proper inquiry and verification on all three issues

raised in the notice u/s 263 of the Act. Ld. DR vehemently contended that in

various judicial pronouncements, it has been held that where inquiry or

verification is warranted but not done, it would certainly cause prejudice to the

interest of revenue and the Commissioner shall be justified in invoking

provisions of section 263 of the Act and in remanding the matter back to the AO

for making such necessary inquiry. Ld. DR parted with the argument with a

final submission that the AO would allow the assessee to explain his stand on all

three issues during reassessment proceedings in pursuance to order u/s 263 of

the Act and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the assessee and hence

action of the AO invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act may kindly be

upheld.


13.    Ld. counsel of the assessee placing reliance on the ratio of the decision of

Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of ITO vs D.G.

Housing Project Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) submitted that the

Commissioner cannot remand the matter for a fresh decision to the AO to

conduct further inquiry without a finding that the order of the AO is erroneous

as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue and such finding of the CIT that

the order is erroneous is a consideration precedent for exercise of jurisdiction u/s


                                        15
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

263 of the Act. Ld. counsel pointed out that the compliance of third proviso to

section 24 (b) of the Act is not mandatory and there is no prescribed proforma in

this proviso for the certificate as required under the said proviso, therefore, copy

of statement of account with HDFC Bank, Pahar Ganj account no. 3224059 in

the joint name of assessee and her husband Shri Uday Kumar Vaish was itself

sufficient to establish and support the claim of the assessee. Ld. counsel has

also drawn our attention towards letter of HDFC Bank dated 15.3.2011 and

submitted that the assessee paid full and final amount of loan along with interest

which was also certified by the concerned HDFC Bank Branch and when the

AO has not raised any doubt about the genuineness of the payment of interest

and repayment schedule/statement of accounts with the concerned HDFC Bank

branch, then it cannot be said that the AO granted deduction to the assessee

without any inquiry and against the provisions of the Act.


14.    Ld. counsel on the second issue of over and above payment towards

purchase of property situated at 56/7, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road and sale of

property situated at 783/161, Deshbandhu Gupta Road Karol Bagh submitted

that the AO made detailed inquiry and after considering the reply and other

relevant documents submitted by the assessee during assessment proceedings in

the light of statement of assesasee's husband Shri Uday Kumar Vaish recorded

on 18.8.2009 u/s 133 of the Act and held that the assessee has shown a capital

gain at Rs.1,40,00,057 and offered additional income of Rs.1 crore as part of


                                        16
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

income under capital gain. Ld. counsel has further drawn our attention towards

reply of the assessee dated 3.3.2014 submitted before the CIT(A) replying to the

notice dated 263 of the Act which is available at pages 191-194 of the assessee's

paper book and submitted that the assessee has not either diverted its head of

income which she actually earned under the capital gain nor withdrawn her

stand which the spouse of the assessee gave in his statement before the survey

team. Ld. counsel vehemently contended that the AO in fact has not given relief

of special rate of income tax on long term capital gain and taxed the same

amount at maximum rate of tax and shifted Rs. 1 crore to income from other

sources instead of income from capital gain which attracts higher rate of tax and

this action of the AO cannot be held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest

of revenue. Ld. counsel vehemently contended that how a particular additional

income declared by the assessee during survey cannot be treated and taxed

twice, once under the head of capital gains and secondly under the head of

income from other sources. Ld. counsel also pointed out that the assessee has

already preferred an appeal against the diversion of additional income of Rs.1

crore from capital gains to income from other sources which is pending before

the ITAT Delhi Benches.


15.    On the third issue of allegation of the AO that the AO completed

assessment without making any inquiry/investigation regarding other property

transactions, the ld. counsel of the assessee has drawn our attention towards


                                       17
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

computation of income which was filed along with return available at page 10 of

assessee's paper book and submitted that the assessee calculated the short term

capital gain on the sale consideration of property at 783/162, Karol Bagh, Delhi

for half share. Ld. counsel further submitted that the assessee also submitted

statement of short term capital gain accrued to the asessee from sale of property

at 16C, Motia Khan, Pahar Ganj, another property at 783/161, Deshbandhu

Gupta Road, New Delhi and third property at 8750, Motia Khan, New Delhi and

offered the amount of Rs.1,40,00,057 for taxation under the head of capital gain.

Ld. counsel further took us through para no. 3 of the notice u/s 263 of the Act

(supra) and submitted that any addition to aforesaid four properties, CIT picked

up property no. 783/160, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh and 49D, MIG

Flat, Motia Khan which were not sold by the assessee and these two properties

were in the name of assessee's husband Shri Uday Kumar Vaish and there was

no need of any inquiry in regard to these properties during the assessment

proceedings of the assessee. Therefore, the third issue raised by the CIT was

also not justified and order of the AO cannot be held as erroneous and

prejudicial to the interest of revenue on all three counts. Ld. counsel of the

assessee lastly pointed out that the AO was very cautious in framing assessment

order as he considered unaccounted amount of Rs.1 crore which was accrued to

the assessee from sale of property at 783/161, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol

Bagh and also considered unaccounted consideration of Rs. 1 crore which was

paid by the assessee as unaccounted consideration towards purchase of property
                                       18
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

at 56/7, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh. Ld. counsel also pointed out that

the CIT was very casual in mentioning facts in the notice issued to the assessee

u/s 263 of the Act as the CIT wrongly mentioned that the assessee has purchased

the property at 783/161, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh which shows

non-application of mind and wrong appreciation of facts by the CIT prior to

invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act and issuance of notice under this

provision. Ld. counsel reiterated its reply to the notice u/s 263 of the Act and

parted with the argument with a last submission that the assessee offered an

amount of Rs.1,40,00,057 under the head of capital gain as the source of

investment but the AO segregated Rs.1 crore from this amount and taxed the

same under the head of income from other sources which attracts higher tax rate,

then this action of the assessee cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to

the interest of revenue. But on the other hand, this action of the AO imposed

higher tax liability on the assessee which brings more revenue to the department.


16.    On careful consideration of above submissions and vigilant and careful

perusal of relevant material placed before us, at the outset, we find it appropriate

to deal with legal contention of the assessee that the impugned assessment order

was passed by the AO with prior approval of higher authority i.e. Addl.

Commissioner in terms of section 153D of the Act and therefore in view of

various judicial pronouncements and judgments, jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act

cannot be validly assumed and invoked by the CIT. To support this legal


                                        19
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

proposition, ld. counsel of the assessee has placed reliance on the orders of the

Tribunal in the case of Goyal Iron & Steel Works (India) vs. Commissioner

of Income Tax(supra, Mehta Cut Piece Cloth House vs. Income Tax Officer

(supra), Income Tax Officer vs. Arora Alloys Ltd. (supra).

17.    Replying to the above, ld. DR has submitted that the ratio of these

decisions is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and

ACIT who gave approval u/s 153D of the Act for passing assessment order u/s

143(3) r/w section 153C of the Act is not equivalent to the position of CIT in the

hierarchy of the department, therefore, the impugned assessment order was very

well within the valid jurisdiction of the CIT for invoking provisions of section

263 of the Act.


18.    On careful consideration of orders of the Tribunal as related by the ld.

counsel of the assessee and provisions of section 153D of the Act and hierarchy

of the income tax department, we are of the considered view that admittedly, the

impugned assessment order which was demolished by the CIT by invoking

provisions of section 263 of the Act was passed with prior approval of ACIT,

Central Range-2, New Delhi vide F.No.153A-03-Mahesh Mehta/11-12/607

dated 28.12.11. The CIT in any terms cannot be equated with ACIT because

CIT holds higher position in the hierarchy of the department. In this situation,

benefit of the ratio of the orders of the Tribunal as relied by the ld. counsel of



                                       20
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

the assessee is not available and hence legal contention of the assessee is hereby

jettisoned.


19.    Coming to the issue as alleged by the CIT in the notice issued to the

assessee u/s 263 of the Act (supra), we note that as per third proviso to section

24(b) of the Act, no deduction shall be made under the second proviso unless the

assessee furnishes certificate from the person to whom interest is payable on the

capital borrowed, specifying the amount of interest payable by the assessee for

the purpose of such acquisition or construction of property was conversion of

the whole or in part of the capital borrowed which remains to be repaid as a new

loan. Meaning thereby that for making claim u/s 24(b) of the Act, a certificate

specifying the amount of interest payable by the assessee has to be submitted

before the AO. From careful reading of section 24 and all three proviso attached

to this provisions, we note that there is no mentioning of any proforma on which

required certificate has to be given. In absence of any prescribed proforma, the

amount of interest payable may be substantiated by way of furnishing a normal

certificate, statement of loan account and other supportive evidence or details

pertinent to payment of interest which was claimed as deduction u/s 24(b) of the

Act. In the present case, the assessee furnished all required detail before the AO

during assessment proceedings along with reply dated 2.12.2011 and 5.12.2011.

From a reply dated 5.12.2011 we note that in para 1, the assessee has mentioned

details of claim of interest and has submitted all necessary evidence in respect of


                                        21
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

interest paid along with this reply in the form of repayment schedule/copy of the

bank statement with HDFC Bank. The AO during the assessment proceedings

has made inquiry in this regard and after proper and reasonable verification and

evaluation of explanation and supportive evidence, submitted by the assessee on

this issue, allowed deduction to the assessee.        The CIT has objected the

allowance of deduction on the allegation of non-furnishing of            required

certificate as per third proviso to section 24(b) of the Act but there is no

conclusion of the CIT that the amount claimed by the assessee was either wrong

or it was a bogus claim. During the proceeding u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee

also furnished a letter confirming the full and final repayment of loan along with

interest but it was properly considered by the CIT.

20.    Under above noted facts and circumstances, we are of the view that under

third proviso to section 24(b) of the Act, the assessee is required to submit a

certificate for making claim of interest under this provision and there is no

prescribed form of certificate.    During the assessment proceedings on the

specific query of the AO, the assessee furnished detailed explanation supported

by repayment schedule, copy of the bank statement to substantiate its claim and

the amount of interest has not been disputed either by the AO or by the CIT. In

this situation, merely non-compliance of directory provisions of the Act cannot

make assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue,

especially when the claim of the assessee regarding interest u/s 24(b) of the Act


                                       22
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

is accepted as genuine and no incorrectness or infirmity has been brought out by

the ld. CIT or any other revenue authorities therein. If for a moment it is

accepted that order is erroneous on account of required certificate but at the

same time, the same cannot be held as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue

as the claim of interest paid by the assessee has not been alleged as bogus or not

correct or not genuine by the ld. CIT.


21.    Under above noted facts and circumstances, we are inclined to note that
the view taken by the AO was a reasonable and plausible view which cannot be
said as unsustainable or not in accordance with law and other relevant provisions
of the Act on the issue of allowability of deduction or interest paid by the
assessee.

22.    While considering the second issue of Rs.1 crore being unaccounted cash payment on
purchase of property no. 56/7, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, from
relevant part of the notice u/s 263 of the Act on this issue, we note that the CIT has raised and
agitated this issue with following facts and observations:-

              "2.2.1 In para 5.3 page no. 2 of the assessment order the A 0
   stated that "During the course of survey Sh. Uday Kumar Vaish admitted to
   purchase the property jointly with his wife Smt. Maya Gupta from M/s
   Honest Estates Pvt. Ltd. against Rs.4.51 crore consisting of 1st Floor, IInd
   Floor and IIIrd Floor with its terrace/roof rights. The registry was done of
   Rs. 2.51 crore whereas the amount paid to Sh. Mahesh Mehta on behalf of
   M/s Honest Estate Pvt. Ltd. was Rs. 4. 51 crore." The same fact is repealed
   in a way or the other in the assessment order in para 5.4, page no. 2, in
   para 5.7 page no. 4. in para 5.8, page no. 4 etc. This is a clear case of
   concealed unaccounted transaction of Rs.1 crore (the other 1 crore shared
   by the assessee's husband), the source of which was not enquired &
   examined.
  2.2.2 The assessee has furnished a statement of short term Capital Gain/ Long Term
  Capital Gain and accordingly arrived at a total Capital Gain of Rs. 1,40,00,057/-
  and offered unaccounted transaction of Rs.1 crore as part of income under


                                               23
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

   Capital Gain. The AO neither rejected the assessee's capital gain shown at
  Rs. 1,40,00,057/- nor he made a recomputation of the capital gain showing
  its afresh how he arrived 01 Rs. 40,00,057 - only but he simply took out 1
  crore from the Capital Gain and placed it under the head "Income from
  Other Sources ".
              2.2.3 It is to be noted that property situated at 56/7, D.B.
       Gupta was sold on 17.07. 2008 to Shri Mahesh Mehta and
       another property situated at 783/161. DB Road was purchased
       from Honest Estate (P) Ltd. on 11.07.2008. The date of sale of
       Property is subsequent to the date of purchase of property. This
       fact shows that unaccounted cash payment of Rs. 2 crore on
       purchase of property can not be set off against unaccounted
       receipt on sale of property. Both transactions are with different
       legal entities and purchase precedes sales.
             2.2.4 While there is a clear Capital Gain statement
       furnished by the assessee showing it or Rs. 1,40,00,057/-, the
       AO's action in diverting 1 crore from the capital gain to income
       from other sources is not justified at all.
             2.2.5 Simply diverting capital gain income to "Income
       from other Sources" does not imply taxing the unaccounted /
       concealed income of Rs.1 crore represented by cash investment
       in property purchased. The Capital Gain declared by the
       assessee with proper statement in no way can be reduced or
       overlapped considering the facts of this case.
              2.2.6 Therefore. it is apparent that the assessment order
       passed by the A.O. is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the
       interest of the revenue as Rs. 1 crore being unaccounted cash
       payment on purchase of property no. 56/7, DB Gupta Rodd,
       Karol Bagh, New Delhi was not considered for taxation. "
23.    From the copy of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/153C of the Act,

we note that the issue of unaccounted receipt from Shri Mahesh Mehta and issue

of payment of unaccounted money to M/s Honest Estate (P) Ltd. has been dealt

from para no. 5 to 5.8 elaborately. From the notices of the AO dated 30.6.11

along with letter (assessee's paper book page 11 to 14), we find that during the


                                         24
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

course of proceedings, the AO showcaused the assessee asking question relating

to search of Mr. Mahesh Mehta, details of all bank accounts of the assessee,

properties and investment made, utilization of money and there is a specific

query about the provisions of property no. 56/7, DB Gupta Road, Karol Bagh,

involving the alleged unaccounted payment of Rs.2 crore out of which Rs.1

crore pertains to the assessee.     We further observe from the copy of the

assessee's submissions dated 15.11.11filed before the AO replying to the

questionnaire and notice dated 30.6.11, the assessee submitted copies of bank

account, statement of assets and liabilities and a detailed note on the properties

purchased by the assessee and property sold during the period under

consideration. In assessee's paper book page 17 to 73, we observe that the

assessee jointly purchased property no. 56/7, DB Gupta Road, with her spouse

from M/s Honest Estates Pvt. Ltd. wherein three separate sale deeds have been

executed in favour of the assessee, first sale deed was registered on 11.7.2008

and remaining two sale deeds were registered on 17.7.2008. From sale deeds

pertaining to property bearing no. 783/160, 161 & 162, DB Gupta Road, New

Delhi available from pages 74 to 171 of the asessee's paper book, we note that

the assessee and her husband jointly sold one property to Mrs. Anita Chhabra

and her son Sitaksh Chhabra, another property to Mrs. Gurcharan Kaur and two

parts of this property have been sold to Mr. Mahesh Mehta by getting registered

sale deed in his favour on the same date i.e. 17.7.2008.



                                        25
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

24.    If we further analyse this issue, then we observe that as per statement of

assessee's husband Shri Uday Kumar Vaish recorded u/s 133 of the Act on

18.8.2009 at the time of survey of the assessee, we note that the husband of the

assessee replying to question no. 6 at page no. 4 of the statement fairly admitted

that a sum of Rs. 2 crore in cash on account of part of sale consideration of

property no. 783/161 was kept by Mr. Mahesh Mehta as purchase consideration

of newly purchased building at 56/7, DB Gupta Road, New Delhi purchased

from    him     i.e.    Mr.   Mahesh   Mehta   himself,   he    was    under   the

impression that no capital gain was to be invoked on this amount. However, in

the subsequent part of the answer, assessee's husband submitted that if this is the

capital gain against his old building as a part of sale consideration, then he is

ready to pay the capital gain tax on this amount subject to no penalty

proceedings just to buy peace. From the statement of short term and along term

capital gain filed along with the return of income available at page 10 of the

assessee's paper book, we note that the assessee offered short term capital gain

of Rs.4,18,200 on sale consideration of property at 783/162, Karol Bagh for half

share. In the second part of this statement, we see that the assessee has offered

long term capital gain accrued to her from sale consideration of three properties

viz. 16C, Motia Khan, Paharganj, property no. 8750, DB Gupta Road, New

Delhi amounting to Rs.1,35,81,857 and in the calculation of taxable income,

income from capital gain has been shown as Rs.1,40,00,057. At this point, it is

relevant to consider the contention of the assessee which were placed before the
                                        26
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

CIT in reply dated 3.3.2014 to notice u/s 263 of the Act wherein at page 5

middle para, it has been mentioned that the purchase from different persons and

sale to different persons is apparent from the sale deed but the group and dealing

person is the same i.e. Mr. Mahesh Mehta for the transaction and sale of

property at 783/162 and purchase of property at 56/7, DB Gupta Road through

Mr. Mahesh Mehta who is the authorised director of M/s Honest Estate (P) Ltd.

and he entered into property transaction with the assessee for purchase of

property in individual capacity and for sale of property in the representative

capacity as director of the said company.       This fact and contention of the

assessee has not been demolished by the CIT and without bringing out any

allegation that the purchase of property and sale of property was with different

persons and entities, it cannot be held that the assessee had entered into property

transaction with different persons/entities. Further, as we have already noted

that the sale of property no. 783/161 was made to Shri Mahesh Mehta and

purchase of property no. 56/7, DB Gupta Road was also made from M/s Honest

Estates (P) Ltd. in which Mr. Mahesh Mehta is a director representative of the

transaction, then in totality of the facts and circumstances, especially when the

sale deeds of both the transactions are registered and executed on the same date

i.e. 17.7.2011, then the half share of sale consideration received by the assessee

amounting to Rs. 1 crore attracts capital gain which has been offered by the

assessee in the statement of long term capital gain as discussed above. We

further observe that while the assessee has shown unaccounted consideration in
                                        27
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

the statement of capital gain filed along with the return of income, then it further

explains the source of unaccounted payment of consideration of purchase of

property bearing no. 56/7, DG Gupta Road, hence, no addition pertaining to

undisclosed investment could have been made. However, as a vigilant tax

collecting authority, the AO adopted a conservative approach and deducted Rs.

1 crore from capital gain and taxed the same under the head of income from

other sources which obviously attracts higher tax rate, then this action of the AO

is more favourable to the revenue which cannot be held as erroneous and

prejudicial to the interest of revenue.


25.    At this juncture, it would be appropriate to consider the ratio of the

decision of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs DG Housing

(supra) wherein it was held that the Commissioner cannot remit the matter for a

fresh decision to the AO to conduct further inquiries without a finding that the

order is erroneous as a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction us/ 263 of

the Act.


26.    From operative part of the order of the CIT at para 6 page 9, we note that

the CIT has held that the assessment on the issues raised in the show cause

notice was made without proper examination, inquiry and verification, therefore,

revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is warranted in a case where

assessment has been made without inquiry or verification. In this para, the CIT

contradicts himself in the first sentence. He mentions that the assessment was

                                          28
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

framed without proper examination, inquiry and verification whereas in the

second sentence, he writes that the assessment has been made without inquiry or

verification which vitiate the impugned order.


27.    Coming to the third and last issue raised by the CIT in the notice and

impugned order u/s 263 of the Act (supra), is related to sale of several other

properties during the relevant previous year. From para 3 of the notice u/s 263

of the Act issued to the assessee, we note that the CIT has picked up six

properties to substantiate this issue against the assessee. Ld. counsel of the

assessee submitted that property listed at Sl. No. 2 to 6 are related to assessee's

husband Shri Uday Kumar Vaish and the assessee has nothing to do with the

capital gain and consideration arising therefrom. Ld. counsel further pointed out

that as far as property at sl. No.1, 3, 4 & 5 are concerned, assessee was holding

these properties jointly with her husband and the assessee filed statement of

short term capital gain in regard to all these four properties which was properly

verified, examined and accepted by the AO. Ld. counsel vehemently contended

that the CIT did not peruse the statements and calculation of income filed by the

assessee along with her husband and the CIT has ignored statement of capital

gain filed by the assessee at the time of framing impugned notice u/s 263 of the

Act as well as impugned order.

28.    Replying to the above, ld. DR submitted that mere query and reply of the

assessee are not sufficient to meet the requirement of proper verification and

                                        29
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

examination of the details filed by the assessee along with return of income and

merely because some details have been filed along with return of income and

some queries were raised by the AO which do not amount to an adequate and

proper examination of the issue.       Ld. DR pointed out that there was an

understatement of consideration pertaining to property at 783/161, DB Gupta

Road sold to Mr. Mahesh Mehta and the AO did not consider the issue of

understatement of consideration and capital gain in regard to property no.

783/160 and 783/162, therefore, the action of the CIT was quite justified and

correct. Replying to the above, ld. counsel of the assessee pointed out that there

was no incriminating material against the assessee regarding understatement of

sale consideration and capital gain except statement of her husband Shri Uday

Kumar Vaish which was recorded during the survey u/s 133 of the Act and the

AO very well examined all the relevant papers and documents pertaining to

income of capital gain accruing to the assessee during the relevant period,

therefore, the view taken by the AO was plausible and in accordance with law

because despite deep inquiry during the assessment proceedings to the sale of

other properties, there was no incriminating material or allegation against the

assessee which could show the understatement of consideration and capital gain

by the assessee on sale of other properties.


29.    On careful consideration of above submissions, we are of the view that on

careful perusal of the statement of capital gain undisputedly submitted by the


                                        30
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

assessee along with return of income, we note that the assessee has declared

capital gain on properties placed at sl. No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 in para 3 page 2 of the

notice u/s 263 of the Act, properties at sl. No. 2 & 6 are not in the name of

assessee, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there was no

requirement of any further examination and verification with regard to these

properties. From para no. 3 of the impugned notice, we note that after placing

table of properties, the CIT has simply mentioned that the AO has completed the

assessment without making any inquiry or investigation on this issue, therefore,

it is apparent that the assessment passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial

to the interest of revenue. In view of documents placed by the assessee before

the authorities below, we note that the CIT made a list of properties sold by the

assessee during the period under consideration and also included two properties

which were undisputedly related to her husband Shri Uday Kumar Vaish,

therefore, there was no need of any further verification and examination in

regard to sale consideration and capital gain accrued therefrom. As far as capital

gain arising from other four properties listed at Sl. No. 1, 3, 4 & 5 is concerned,

we note that the assessee declared sale consideration and capital gain in the

statement filed along with her return of income. The AO properly considered

understatement of consideration and capital gain accrued to the assessee after

properly considering the statement of assessee's husband Shri Uday Kumar

Vaish recorded u/s 133 of the Act. We are unable to see any other incriminating

material or evidence which could establish the allegation of understatement of
                                        31
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

sale consideration and capital gain on other properties. Per contra, from the

assessment order, we note that the AO took a favourable view to the revenue by

placing Rs. 1 crore under the head of income from other sources instead of

income from capital gains as declared by the assessee. Without making any

deliberation on the merit of this action of the AO, we are of the view that

decision taken by the AO cannot be held as unsustainable or not in accordance

with law.


30.    From operative part of the impugned order, we note that the CIT has

remitted all three issues to the file of AO by holding that the AO has failed to

conduct proper examination and verification on three issues. The CIT further

held that in view of various judicial pronouncements, it has been held that where

the inquiry or verification is warranted but not done, it would certainly cause

prejudice to the revenue and the Commissioner shall be justified in remanding

the matter back to the AO for making such inquiry. At this juncture, it would be

appropriate to consider the ratio laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court of

Delhi in the case of ITO vs DG Housing Projects Ltd. (supra), wherein it was

held that the Commissioner cannot remit the matter for fresh decision to AO to

conduct further inquiry without a finding that the order of the AO is erroneous

because such finding that the order is erroneous is condition precedent u/s 263

of the Act.




                                       32
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

31.    The relevant operative part of this order in para 10 and 11 and relevant

para 16 to 18 read as follows:-


             "10. Revenue does not have any right to appeal to the
      first appellate authority against an order passed by the
      Assessing Officer. Section 263 has been enacted to empower the
      CIT to exercise power of revision and revise any order passed
      by the Assessing Officer, if two cumulative conditions are
      satisfied. Firstly, the order sought to be revised should be
      erroneous and secondly, it should be prejudicial to the interest
      of the Revenue. The expression ,,prejudicial to the interest of
      the Revenue is of wide import and is not confined to merely
      loss of tax. The term ,,erroneous means a wrong/incorrect
      decision deviating from law. This expression postulates an error
      which makes an order unsustainable in law.

      11. The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an
      adjudicator. If the Assessing Officer as an adjudicator decides a
      question or aspect and makes a wrong assessment which is
      unsustainable in law, it can be corrected by the Commissioner
      in exercise of revisionary power. As an investigator, it is
      incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to investigate the facts
      required to be examined and verified to compute the taxable
      income. If the Assessing Officer fails to conduct the said
      investigation, he commits an error and the word ,,erroneous
      includes failure to make the enquiry. In such cases, the order
      becomes erroneous because enquiry or verification has not
      been made and not because a wrong order has been passed on
      merits.

      -------------


      16. Thus, in cases of wrong opinion or finding on merits, the
      CIT has to come to the conclusion and himself decide that the
      order is erroneous, by conducting necessary enquiry, if
      required and necessary, before the order under Section 263 is

                                        33
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

     passed. In such cases, the order of the Assessing Officer will be
     erroneous because the order passed is not sustainable in law
     and the said finding must be recorded. CIT cannot remand the
     matter to the Assessing Officer to decide whether the findings
     recorded are erroneous. In cases where there is inadequate
     enquiry but not lack of enquiry, again the CIT must give and
     record a finding that the order/inquiry made is erroneous. This
     can happen if an enquiry and verification is conducted by the
     CIT and he is able to establish and show the error or mistake
     made by the Assessing Officer, making the order unsustainable
     in Law. In some cases possibly though rarely, the CIT can also
     show and establish that the facts on record or inferences drawn
     from facts on record per se justified and mandated further
     enquiry or investigation but the Assessing Officer had
     erroneously not undertaken the same. However, the said finding
     must be clear, unambiguous and not debatable. The matter
     cannot be remitted for a fresh decision to the Assessing Officer
     to conduct further enquiries without a finding that the order is
     erroneous. Finding that the order is erroneous is a condition
     orrequirement which must be satisfied for exercise of
     jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. In such matters, to
     remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply
     and mean the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not
     the order is erroneous but has directed the Assessing Officer to
     decide the aspect/question.

     17. This distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while
     exercising jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and in the
     absence of the finding that the order is erroneous and
     prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, exercise of jurisdiction
     under the said section is not sustainable. In most cases of
     alleged "inadequate investigation", it will be difficult to hold
     that the order of the Assessing Officer, who had conducted
     enquiries and had acted as an investigator, is erroneous,
     without CIT conducting verification/inquiry. The order of the
     Assessing Officer may be or may not be wrong. CIT cannot
     direct reconsideration on this ground but only when the order is
     erroneous. An order of remit cannot be passed by the CIT to ask
                                       34
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

     the Assessing Officer to decide whether the order was
     erroneous. This is not permissible. An order is not erroneous,
     unless the CIT hold and records reasons why it is erroneous. An
     order will not become erroneous because on remit, the
     Assessing Officer may decide that the order is erroneous.
     Therefore CIT must after recording reasons hold that the order
     is erroneous. The jurisdictional precondition stipulated is that
     the CIT must come to the conclusion that the order is erroneous
     and is unsustainable in law. We may notice that the material
     which the CIT can rely includes not only the record as it stands
     at the time when the order in question was passed by the
     Assessing Officer but also the record as it stands at the time of
     examination by the CIT [see CIT vs. Shree Manjunathesware
     Packing Products, 231 ITR 53 (SC)]. Nothing bars/prohibits the
     CIT from collecting and relying upon new/additional
     material/evidence to show and state that the order of the
     Assessing Officer is erroneous.

     18. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in Malabar
     Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2000) 243
     ITR 83 (SC), had observed that the phrase ,,prejudicial to the
     interest of Revenue has to be read in conjunction with an
     erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of
     Revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer
     cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.
     Thus, when the Assessing Officer had adopted one of the
     courses permissible and available to him, and this has resulted
     in loss to Revenue; or two views were possible and the
     Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT may
     not agree; the said orders cannot be treated as an erroneous
     order prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view
     taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law. In such
     matters, the CIT must give a finding that the view taken by the
     Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law and, therefore, the
     order is erroneous. He must also show that prejudice is caused
     to the interest of the Revenue."



                                       35
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

32.    In view of above, as per ratio laid down by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High

Court, it is amply clear that in the cases where there is inadequate inquiry but

not lack of inquiry, again the CIT must give and record a finding that the

order/inquiry made is erroneous. This can happen if inquiry and verification is

conducted by the CIT and he is able to establish and show the error and mistake

made by the AO, making the order unsustainable in law. Their lordships further

made it clear that in some cases possibly though rarely, the CIT can also show

and establish that the facts on record or inferences drawn from facts on record

per se justified and mandated further enquiry or investigation but the Assessing

Officer had erroneously not undertaken the same. In this situation, the said

finding must be clear, unambiguous and not debatable. The matter cannot be

remitted for a fresh decision to the Assessing Officer to conduct further inquiry

without a finding that the order is erroneous. In this judgement, it was further

held that the distinction must be kept in mind by the CIT while exercising

judgment under Section 263 of the Act and in absence of the finding that the

order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, the exercise of

jurisdiction under said section is not sustainable.   The assessee has also held

that the finding that the order is erroneous is the condition or requirement which

must be satisfied for exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. In such matters,

to remand the matter/issue to the Assessing Officer would imply and mean that

the CIT has not examined and decided whether or not the order is erroneous but

has directed the Assessing Officer to decide the aspect/question.          In this
                                        36
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10




judgment, their lordships also guided us by saying that in the most of the cases

of alleged inadequate investigation, it would be difficult to hold that the order of

the AO, who had conducted inquiries and had acted as an investigator is

erroneous without CIT conducting verification/inquiry. It was also laid down

that the CIT can direct reconsideration of assessment on this ground but only

when the order is erroneous and an order of remit cannot be passed by the CIT

to ask the AO to decide whether the order was erroneous and such order is not

permissible under the provisions of section 263 of the Act. Finally, the bottom-

line of this judgment is that the jurisdictional pre-condition for invoking section

263 of the Act is that the CIT must come to the conclusion that the order is

erroneous and is unsustainable in law.

33.    Turning to the facts of the present case, we have already discussed
elaborately hereinabove that the AO raised queries on all three issues and also
considered explanation, evidence and other relevant material placed before him
before framing impugned assessment order. The view taken by the AO on all
three issues agitated and alleged by the CIT in the notice u/s 263 of the Act
cannot be held as unsustainable and not in accordance with law. Per contra,
from careful and logical analysis of the action of the AO, we observe that in
regard to understatement of sale consideration received by the assessee and
understatement of purchase consideration paid by the assessee, undisputedly
both transactions were undertaken by the assessee and her husband jointly with
Mr. Mahesh Mehta and his other group entities on the same date i.e. 17th July,
2008, hence, the share of Rs.1 crore paid by the assessee towards unaccounted
purchase price of property no. 56/7, DB Gupta Road, the source of said
investment is self speaking and explained when the revenue authorities have

                                         37
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

noted that the assessee had received unaccounted consideration of Rs.1 crore on
sale of property to Mr. Mahesh Mehta on the very same date. In this situation,
the addition on account of unexplained investment could not be made and
income of capital gain accrued to the assessee by way of unaccounted
consideration received by her. The tax liability on capital gain attracts which
was placed by the assessee along with her return of income available at page 10
of the paper book.      The AO after consideration of capital gain statement
accepted the amount of Rs. 1 crore as unaccounted consideration received by
the assessee on sale of property and paid by the assessee on purchase of
property on the very same date and the AO instead of taxing the capital gain
taxed Rs.1 crore under the head of income from other sources which is a more
favourable view for the revenue. In this situation, view taken by the AO in
framing assessment order on all three issues cannot be held as unsustainable and
not in accordance with law. In this situation, while the CIT himself is not sure
about the issue of erroneousness of impugned assessment order, which is vivid
from the contents of the notice issued to the assessee u/s 263 of the Act and in
totality of the facts and allegations mentioned in the notice u/s 263 of the Act
and in the impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act, we note that the CIT
simply alleged conclusion of the AO and held that the AO has failed to conduct
proper inquiry and verification on the issues cited above and without holding
any specific erroneousness and without any finding that the views taken by the
AO on all three are unsustainable and not in accordance with law. The CIT
cannot remit the matter for reassessment to AO. Finally, respectfully following
the ratio laid down by jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of DG
Housing (supra), we are of the view that the conclusion of the AO on all three
alleged issues was supported by reasonable and plausible query, verification and
examination of relevant material which is reasonable and the same cannot be
held as unsustainable and not in accordance with law.         In this situation,
invoking of provision of section 263 of the Act by issuance of notice and
                                       38
ITA No. 5701/Del/2014
Asstt.Year: 2009-10

passing impugned order, directing the AO to revisit the issue and to make
further inquiry cannot be held as valid and in this situation, action of the CIT
issuing notice and passing impugned order cannot be held as sustainable and
valid and the same deserves to be quashed. We order accordingly.

34.        Ground no. 1 to 4 of the assessee are allowed and notice issued by the
CIT and impugned order passed u/s 263 of the Act are quashed.

35.        In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

           Order pronounced in the open court on 08/07/2015.

      Sd/-                                                  Sd/-
   (J.S. REDDY)                                     (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                       JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 8th JULY 2015
`GS'


Copy forwarded to:-

      1.   Appellant
      2.   Respondent
      3.   C.I.T.(A)
      4.   C.I.T.
      5.   DR
                                                          By Order



                                                          Asstt.Registrar




                                             39

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Article Management Solutions System Article Management Software S

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions