IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH BEFORE DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.194/RJT/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14)

(Physical Hearing)

Yasmeen Waseem Parmar, Vs. Principal Commissioner of Bawa No Delo, Opp. Old Post Income Tax, Office, Nagarpara Main Road, Jamnagar O/s. Khambhaliya Gate, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIJPH3607F (Assessee) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Dushyant Maharshi, AR Respondent by Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR Date of Hearing 25/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM:

By way of this appeal, the assessee has challenged the correctness of the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”) under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the assessment year 2013-14. Grievances raised by the assessee, are as follows:

“1.Hon'ble Pr. CIT, Jamnagar has erred in law and in facts in setting-aside the order passed by the assessing officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even when the order as passed by the assessing officer was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.

2.Hon'ble Pr. CIT, Jamnagar erred in law and in facts by setting-aside the order passed by the assessing officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even when the assessment order was passed by the assessing officer under section 143(3) of the Act, after conducting necessary enquiries and after due application of mind regarding share of assessee, the deduction u/s. 54B &

Valuation report given by Govt. valuer

3. Hon'ble Pr. CIT, Jamnagar erred in law and in facts by not providing the sufficient opportunity of being heard and passed an order u/s. 263 without considering the adjournment application by the assessee.

4. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. During the revision proceedings, under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (in short “Ld PCIT”), has observed that assessee has not filed return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2013-14, u/s 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). The assessment was re-opened for the reason that the assessee along with 24 co-owners have sold an immovable property for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,09,00,000/-. The market value / jantri value of this property is Rs. 7,28,53,600/-. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee has filed return of income, declaring total income at Rs.3,468/- and capital loss of Rs. 20,66,730/-. The reopened assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, on

28.03.2022, by accepting the returned income.

5. Later on, the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (in short “Ld PCIT”), has exercised his jurisdiction, under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The ld PCIT, on perusal of case records, noticed that while passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 28.03.2022, the assessing officer had failed to consider the following:

(i)Applicability of provisions of section 50C of the Act.

(ii).Sale consideration should be taken at Rs. 67,53,857/- (being share @9.27%), as against Rs. 50,63,325/- (share @6.95%), taken by the assessee.

(iii) As per the DVO, Rajkot's report dated 27.10.2023, the purchase cost should be taken at Rs. 84,357/-, as on 01/04/1981, as against Rs. 59,43,320/-, taken by the assessee for working out the indexed cost of purchase.

(iv) Deduction / exemption u/s 54B of the Act, is not allowable to the assessee.

6. In view of the above, the ld PCIT was of the view that the order passed by the assessing officer u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 28.03.2022, is prima facie erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of rev