M.R. Apparels (P) Ltd. v. PCIT6

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT v. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 2011 TaxPub(DT) 0088 (Del-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 830 (Del-Trib) 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 ORDER *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. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Pr. Commissioner has erred in holding that 'the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in holding that the Learned Assessing Officer has 'failed to verify the issue', without adequately perusing the process followed and information/documents asked by the Learned Assessing Officer, during the assessment proceedings. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Pr. Commissioner has erred in directing the Learned Assessing Officer to reverify and tax the particular transaction just because of 'difference of opinion' framed on same set of documents as reviewed by the Learned Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. 3. For the sake of brevity and ready reference the order of the learned PCIT passed under section 263 is reproduced below: The assessee filed original ITR on 30-3-2016 declaring returned income of Rs. 14,000 The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, wherein verification of sale consideration of property was one of the scrutiny reasons. The assessing officer (AO) completed scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 4-5-2017, wherein income was assessed at Rs. 14,000 as per the ITR filed by assessee. 2. The assessment record of assessee was called for and on examination of the same; it was noticed that during assessment, the assessee submitted registered sale deed of the property. The sale deed was registered on 17-3-2015 for a consideration of Rs. 6,50,00,000 and stamp duty of Rs. 32,50,000 was paid by the purchaser, M/s VTS IT Solutions LLP. Further TDS @1% amounting to Rs. 6,50,000 on total sale consideration was also paid by the purchaser on 18/3/2015. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 830 (Del-Trib)

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

ORDER

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.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Pr. Commissioner has erred in holding that 'the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue'.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr.CIT has erred in holding that the Learned Assessing Officer has 'failed to verify the issue', without adequately perusing the process followed and information/documents asked by the Learned Assessing Officer, during the assessment proceedings.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Pr. Commissioner has erred in directing the Learned Assessing Officer to reverify and tax the particular transaction just because of 'difference of opinion' framed on same set of documents as reviewed by the Learned Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings.

3. For the sake of brevity and ready reference the order of the learned PCIT passed under section 263 is reproduced below:

The assessee filed original ITR on 30-3-2016 declaring returned income of Rs. 14,000 The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS, wherein verification of sale consideration of property was one of the scrutiny reasons. The assessing officer (AO) completed scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 4-5-2017, wherein income was assessed at Rs. 14,000 as per the ITR filed by assessee.

2. The assessment record of assessee was called for and on examination of the same; it was noticed that during assessment, the assessee submitted registered sale deed of the property. The sale deed was registered on 17-3-2015 for a consideration of Rs. 6,50,00,000 and stamp duty of Rs. 32,50,000 was paid by the purchaser, M/s VTS IT Solutions LLP. Further TDS @1% amounting to Rs. 6,50,000 on total sale consideration was also paid by the purchaser on 18/3/2015.