Kamaluddin Popatlal Surani Vs PCIT (ITAT Surat)
In the matter abovementioned ITAT Surat have held that PCIT rightly invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 as he observed that assessee failed to explain the nature and source of investment with necessary supporting evidence.
Assessee carried on retail business of onion and potatoes who filed his return for AY 2017-18 at Rs.3,45,749/-. The case was re-opened for the reason that assessee had purchased immovable properties for Rs.33,18,000/- whose value was Rs.48,11,989/- as per the Stamp Valuation Authority (SVA). After noticing the difference of Rs.14,93,939/- between the actual sale consideration and Stamp Duty Value, addition of Rs.48,11,989/- u/s 56(2)(x) was made. Subsequently, PCIT observed that AO had added FMV (Fair Market Value) of the property amounting to Rs.44,11,939/- to the income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(x) instead of Rs.14,93,939/- u/s 56(2)(x) and actual purchase consideration of Rs.33,18,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69A. Hence, PCIT found that the order was erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Reply was submitted in response to the notice u/s 263 where assessee submitted that he had already filed appeal before CIT (A) against order u/s u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B. So, notice issued u/s 263 was bad in law. PCIT rejected the submissions of the assessee and set-aside the assessment order.
