Madhya Pradesh High Court
Income Tax Department vs M/S Sbd Developers on 12 January, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
ITA No. 207 of 2022
(INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Vs M/S SBD DEVELOPERS)
Dated : 12-01-2023
Ms Veena Mandlik, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard on I.A. No. 8458/2022, an application u/S 5 of Limitation Act
for condonation of delay.
For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. 8458/2022 is
hereby allowed. Delay of 80 days in filing this appeal is condoned.
Also heard on the question of admission.
Appeal is admitted for hearing on the following substantial questions
of law:
1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the ITAT was justified in law in quashing the revisionary
proceedings u/S 263 and restoring the assessment order u/S 143(3)
by holding that the Ld. Pr. CIT erred in assuming the jurisdiction
u/S 263, whereas while assuming jurisdiction u/S 263, the Pr. CIT
had specified the reasons in his order u/S 263 and directed to AO
for passing a fresh order after examining the issues, since the A.O.
had, in the original assessment order, ignored the issue of stamp
value of the sold properties being more than there sale value,
attracting the provisions of Section 43CA of the IT Act?
2. Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
ITAT was justified in law in quashing the revisionary proceedings
u/S 263 of the PCIT without appreciating that the provisions of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 1/12/2023
5:51:26 PM
2
Section 263 are justified if no proper inquiry has been done or the
obvious issue has been ignored by A.O., as per Rajmandit State
Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT Kolkata - 111 and reiterated by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Deniel Merchants Pvt. Ltd. V/S ITO(SC)?
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the ITAT was justified in law in vitiating the provisions of Section
43CA and 50C of the IT Act, 1961, thus ignored the law laid down
in IPCA Laboratory Ltd. V/s DCIT 266 ITR 521(SC) - "When
there is no ambiguity in the provisions of the Statue, provisions
cannot be interpreted to confer benefit to the assessee"?
Issue notice to respondent on payment of process fee by RAD mode
within seven working days. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
sh
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SEHAR HASEEN
Signing time: 1/12/2023
5:51:26 PM