Case Law Details
Sukhwani Developers Vs Pr. CIT (Central) (ITAT Pune)
ITAT held that when two views are legally possible and Assessing Officer adopts one view the Assessment Order cannot be said to be erroneous for the CIT to invoke jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act.
The other issue on which the Ld.Pr.CIT has invoked Section 263 is that according to the Ld.Pr.CIT the Annual Letting Value of completed stock of Project Elmwood should have been added to the income of the assessee in the light of decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing and Finance 354 ITR 180. Ld.Pr.CIT is of the opinion that the AO has not examined this issue. It is observed that the year under consideration is A.Y.2017-18.
The assessee had filed copies of B/S and P&L A/c during the assessment proceedings. The assessee had shown closing stock. Thus during the assessment proceedings the AO was aware that there was closing stock of ready flats. However, AO decided not to tax these as Income from House Property. This is A.Y.2017-18. At that point of time,for A.Y.2017-18,there were two views on taxability of these ready flats which have been shown as Stock in trade. The AO took a view of not taxing it under the head Income from House property. When there are two legally possible views and AO adopts one of them, the Assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous on this ground.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
