Pr. CIT invoked jurisdiction under section 263 on the ground that by not considering the physical transfer of leasehold property right registered by a sale deed during the year under consideration and consequently by not determining the undisclosed income arising from capital gain of assessee, scrutiny assessment order had become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Held: The registered sale deed, which was part of assessment record, clearly showed that there was physical transfer of property by assessee and payment in lieu of the same was received by it. Non-compliance of assessee in response to show-cause notice also indicated the fact that it had no proper explanation to offer in this regard. AO, while framing assessment order, should have considered the full sale consideration of Rs. 6,50,00,000 as receipt of assessee and indexed cost of the property value [Rs. 1,20,48,311] acquired in the year 2007-08 should have been adjusted against the same to arrive at the undisclosed capital gain of assessee. In view of this it is held that assessment order passed by AO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of Explanation 2(a) of section 263.
IN THE ITAT DELHI
DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, A.M. & YOGESH KUMAR US, J.M.
M.R. Apparels (P) Ltd. v. PCIT-6
ITA No. 198/Del/2020
6 February, 2024
Assessee by: Nitin Goyal, CA
Revenue by: Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
DR. B. R. R. Kumar, A.M.
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Learned PCIT-6, New Delhi dated 18-11-2019.
2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Pr. Commissioner has erred in initiating the proceedings under section 263 of the Act and that the order passed by the Learned Pr. Commissioner is bad in law and uncalled for.
2. That the Learned Pr. Commissioner has erred in passing the order without giving due opportunity of being heard to the appellant,
Because, the appellant had not received any alleged email for re-fixing the matter;
Because the appellant has made a request to Pr. Commissioner -6 to allow to take copy of assessment records but the said application was pending for disposal at the end of the office of Pr. Commissioner -6 Delhi which is against the principal of natural justice and bad in law.