MEHULBHAI DURLABHJIBHAI VITHALANI, SURAT V. ACIT, CIRLCLE-2(2), SURAT

ITA 37/SRT/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6248 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S. T. BIDARI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Assessment record; Capital Gains
• Section: 54; 263; 143(3); 50C; 54F; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM ./ITA NO.37/SRT/2020 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEARS: (2015-16) (VIRTUAL COURT HEARING) MEHULBHAI DURLABHJIBHAI VITHALANI, GOKUL ENTERPRISE, 118, ASTHA TEXTILE MARKET, OPP. ADINATH MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT-395002. VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2), SURAT. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.: AAPPV1372F (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HIREN R. VEPARI, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI S. T. BIDARI, CIT(DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 22/03/2021 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/04/2021 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SURAT-2, (IN SHORT THE LD. PCIT) UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). THE GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS: (1) THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S.263 WITHOUT SATISFYING CONDITIONS. (2) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OUGHT NOT TO HAVE INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 ON THE VERY SAME POINT ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE INQUIRY AND TAKEN POSITION. (3) THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX DID NOT APPRECIATE THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW WHERE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 DO NOT STAND TO SUSTAIN IF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OPTS TO TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE SAME MATTER. (4) THE LEARNED PR. CIT WAS DRIVEN BY EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATION IN NOT DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263. (5) THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR VARY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL. PAGE | 2 ITA NO.37/SRT/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2015- 16 MEHULBHAI DURLABHJI VIITHALANI 2. THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, ARE AS FOLLOWS. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON 29.09.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.91,08,060/-. THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME FROM TEXTILE, HANDLOOM AND POWER LOOMS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THE ASSESSEE`S CASE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS FRAMED ON 30.11.2017. 3. LATER ON, LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LD PCIT) HAS EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD PCIT NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ( NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND) LOCATED AT KINDORANA, TAJUKA RAJUIA, WHICH WAS REGISTERED BEFORE THE SRO RAJULA, VIDE REGISTRATION NO, 88/2015 DATED 17.01.2015 FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,00,00,000/-. AS PER THE SALE DEED, THE STAMP DUTY AMOUNT IS SHOWN AT RS.5,49,000/- AND ADDITIONAL STAMP OF RS.25,00,000 (25,000 X 100) HAS BEEN USED. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL STAMP DUTY PAID FOR THE SAID PROPERTY IS AT RS.30,49,000/- (RS.5,49,000+ RS.25,00,000) . IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED JANTRI VALUE AT RS.30,00,000/- FOR HIS SHARE @30 % IN THE SAID PROPERTY. HOWEVER, SRO, RAJUIA HAS VALUED THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS.6,22,19,600/-. THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED BY SHRI ARJUNBHAI M BHAMMAR (SHARE 70 %) AND ASSESSEE (SHARE 30%). ACCORDINGLY, JANTRI VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE ASSESSEES CASE WOULD BE RS 1,86,65,880/-. THIS AMOUNT WAS THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, IN RESPECT OF HIS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 4. LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LD PCIT) HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2016, AND NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY PROPERTIES OWNED BY HIM INCLUDING PURCHASE OF NEW PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR IN ASSET SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. WITHOUT GOING INTO THESE FACTS, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, LD PCIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT HAS BEEN ALLOWED WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION / EXAMINATION PAGE | 3 ITA NO.37/SRT/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2015- 16 MEHULBHAI DURLABHJI VIITHALANI OF THE FACTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY BEFORE THE LD PCIT STATING THAT ON THIS VERY POINT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY TAKEN A POSITION BY QUERYING THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BEING SATISFIED ON THIS SCORE. THAT IS, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY TAKEN VIEW IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN OFFERED FOR TAXATION AND GENUINENESS OF THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF THE ACT, AND SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING FULLY SATISFIED, FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT THEREFORE, ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HENCE ORDER OF THE LD PCIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT MAY BE QUASHED. 6. HOWEVER, LD PCIT HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES: (I).THERE BEING A DIFFERENTIAL OF AMOUNT OF RS.5,22,19,600/- TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, AND (II).ALLOWING OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION/ EXAMINATION OF THE FACTS. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. PCIT, PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. SHRI HIREN R. VEPARI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY LD PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2, SURAT , UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. AS PER THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE DATED 31-12-2019, THE PCIT INVOKED JURISDICTION BY PROPOSING TO HOLD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS ON TWO SCORES; (A) NON-CONSIDERATION OF 50C ANGLE, WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT BY THE AO, AND (B) DENIAL OF RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54F FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION. BOTH THE ABOVE POINTS RELATE TO A SOLITARY TRANSACTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PLOT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT AO HAD ALREADY TAKEN A POSITION BY QUERYING ON LONG PAGE | 4 ITA NO.37/SRT/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2015- 16 MEHULBHAI DURLABHJI VIITHALANI TERM CAPITAL GAINS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND TAKEN THE POSSIBLE VIEW. ON THE VERY SAME ISSUE ON WHICH THE VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO, THE PR. CIT-1, SURAT HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIEW IN THE MATTER, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE AO AFTER QUERYING AND SATISFYING HIMSELF HAS TAKEN A CONSCIOUS VIEW IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREFORE THIS CANNOT BE AMENABLE TO THE REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT , HENCE THE ORDER OF LD PCIT SHOULD BE QUASHED. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI S. T. BIDARI, LD. CIT(DR) STATED THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 30.11.2017, IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. FOR THAT HE RELIED ON PARA NOS.6.1, 6.2 AND 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. PCIT AND ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND AND DID NOT MAKE ADEQUATE ENQUIRY, THEREFORE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HENCE, LD. PCIT HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT THEREFORE, ORDER OF THE LD PCIT SHOULD BE UPHELD. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. PCIT AND OTHER MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER UNDER 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.11.2017, WHICH WAS REVISED BY THE LD. PCIT, UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME, IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE: THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.91,08,060/- ON 29/09/2015. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME FROM TEXTILES, HANDLOOM AND POWER LOOMS. THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED INCOME FROM PROFIT AND GAINS FROM THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSION, CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2.CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED UNDER LIMITED SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. HENCE A NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 21/09/2016 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED PAGE | 5 ITA NO.37/SRT/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2015- 16 MEHULBHAI DURLABHJI VIITHALANI UPON THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) R.W.S 129 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26/07/2017 CALLING FOR THE DETAILS REGARDING THE REASONS FOR SELECTION OF THE CASE FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS WHICH WAS ALSO DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.8 OF 2017, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO PROVIDED OPTION TO MAKE COMPLIANCE WITH DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH E-FILLING FACILITY ON INCOME TAX BUSINESS APPLICATION (ITBA) OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT VIDES E-MAIL SEND ON 05/10/2017. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REGISTER HIS OPTION; HENCE THE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED OFFLINE. 3.IN COMPLIANCE TO THE ABOVE NOTICES, SHRI N P BHARUCHA OF M/S. M S CHOKSI & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THIS OFFICE ON 03/08/2017. THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE OFFICE FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE SUBMISSIONS/REPLY/EXPLANATIONS CALLED FOR. THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM. THE REPLY/SUBMISSIONS/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EXAMINED, DULY CONSIDERED AND PLACED ON RECORD. HOWEVER, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE IN THIS CASE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL PRESENT ON RECORD. 4.SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE REMARKS AND MATERIAL MADE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER: SR. NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) TOTAL INCOME AS PER COMPUTATION OF INCOME 91,08,060/- ADDITION: NIL/- ASSESSED INCOME 91,08,060/- 5.ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. GIVE CREDIT FOR PREPAID TAXES, IF ANY, AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE & CHALLAN ACCORDINGLY. 11. FROM THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUES, NAMELY: (I) THERE BEING A DIFFERENTIAL OF AMOUNT OF RS.5,22,19,600/- TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, AND (II)ALLOWING OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO EXAMINE THESE TWO ISSUES. THUS, WE NOTE THAT LD PCIT HAS FOUND THESE TWO SPECIFIC ERRORS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.11.2017, HENCE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 12. THE LAW WITH REGARD TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO FAILED TO MAKE ENQUIRIES WHICH HE OUGHT TO HAVE MADE IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE IS WELL SETTLED. THE COMMISSIONER CAN REGARD THE ORDER AS ERRONEOUS ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES BEFORE ACCEPTING THE STATEMENTS PAGE | 6 ITA NO.37/SRT/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2015- 16 MEHULBHAI DURLABHJI VIITHALANI MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS NOT ONLY AN ADJUDICATOR BUT ALSO AN INVESTIGATOR. HE CANNOT REMAIN PASSIVE IN THE FACE OF A RETURN WHICH IS APPARENTLY IN ORDER BUT CALLS FOR FURTHER INQUIRY. IT IS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE SUCH AS TO PROVOKE AN INQUIRY. IT IS BECAUSE IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD MAKE SUCH AN INQUIRY PRUDENT THAT THE WORD 'ERRONEOUS' IN SECTION 263 INCLUDES THE FAILURE TO MAKE SUCH AN ENQUIRY. THE ORDER BECOMES ERRONEOUS BECAUSE SUCH AN INQUIRY HAS NOT BEEN MADE AND NOT BECAUSE THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER IF ALL THE FACTS STATED THEREIN ARE ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT. WE DERIVE SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSITION AS STATED ABOVE FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GEE VEE ENTERPRISES 99 ITR 375 (DEL).THUS, WE NOTE THAT IN ASSESSEE`S CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE INQUIRY ABOUT THE DIFFERENTIAL OF AMOUNT OF RS.5,22,19,600/- TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, AND ABOUT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT INVESTIGATE THE FACTS STATED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 13. WE NOTE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT, DATED 26.07.2017 VIDE PAGE NO.8 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN, VIDE QUERY NO.(XII) RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ABOUT SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND TO JUSTIFY CAPITAL GAIN. WE NOTE THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAIN. THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFORE US ( VIDE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.10), THE COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN ALONGWITH COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.10A & 10B, AND CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAIN DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. WE NOTE THAT COPY OF INCOME TAX ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OF CPC BENGALURU DOES NOT CONTAIN THE DETAIL OF TRANSACTION OF SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAIN; IT IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY PAGE | 7 ITA NO.37/SRT/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2015- 16 MEHULBHAI DURLABHJI VIITHALANI ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TRANSACTION OF SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAIN REMAINS UNEXPLAINED FROM ASSESSEE SIDE. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN PARA 11 OF THIS ORDER, WHEREIN WE NOTE THAT THERE IS NO WHISPER TO EXAMINE THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAIN, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO MAKE ENQUIRY. THUS, THE CONTENTION OF LD COUNSEL THAT THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES SOLD AND DIFFERENCE OF RS.5,22,19,600/- HAS BEEN PULLED OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND THAT THE AO APPLIED HIS MIND AND TOOK CONSCIOUS VIEW TO ACCEPT PROPOSITION OF THE ASSESSEE, IS FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT. 14. WE NOTE THAT IN ASSESSEE`S CASE THERE IS GROSS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, DESPITE THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAME BEING CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD PROPERTY, WHICH WAS HELD IN JOINT NAMES FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 CRORE AND ASSESSEES SHARE BEING @30 %, THE SAME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AT JANTRI VALUE OF RS.30 LAKHS. FURTHER, IT ALSO REMAINS UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WAS VALUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OF RAJULA (DISTRICT AMRELI) AT RS.6,22,19,600/- AND HENCE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.5,22,19,600/-, IN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION. THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN SAID AMOUNT OF RS.5,22,19,600/- WAS THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED U/S 50C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEE'S TOTAL INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME BY THE AO CAN IN NO WAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE ONE POSSIBLE VIEW IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE AO TO CONSIDER SUCH STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.6,22,19,600/- AND THEREBY NON-APPLICATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT HAS RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED BY THE AO ERRONEOUS, IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. ABOUT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 F OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO SUBMIT THAT THEY HAD GIVEN ALL THE DETAILS TO THE AO OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AFTER SALE OF ORIGINAL PROPERTY, NEW PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THEM ON 04.04.2015, WHEREAS ORIGINAL PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 17.01.2015. IN RESPECT OF THESE ASPECTS, IT IS PAGE | 8 ITA NO.37/SRT/2020 ASSESSMENT YEARS.2015- 16 MEHULBHAI DURLABHJI VIITHALANI A FACT NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT OLD PROPERTY SOLD AND THE NEW PROPERTY PURCHASED HAVE NOT BEEN REFLECTED IN BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IF, THE PROPERTIES WERE NOT TO BE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET, AS NONE MAY HAVE EXISTED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2015, STILL THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS SALE CONSIDERATION OF OLD PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER CONTENDED NOR HAS DEMONSTRATED. THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT LOOKED INTO AND EXAMINED THESE FACTUAL ASPECTS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54FOF THE ACT WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS HAS RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. BASED ON THESE FACTS AND PRECEDENTS APPLICABLE TO THESE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT LD PCIT HAS RIGHTLY EXERCISED HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THUS WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD PCIT. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 21/04/2021 BY PLACING RESULT ON NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (PAWAN SINGH) (DR. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LWJR /SURAT / DATE: 21/04/2021 SAMANTA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, SURAT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/SR. PS/PS ITAT, SURAT 0