vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk

0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh xxu xks;y] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 788/JPR/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shree Auro Iron Limited, cuke Principal Commissioner of

11, Dudu Bagh, Vs. Income-tax-I, Loha Mandi S.C. Link Road, Jaipur.

Jaipur.

LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@

PAN/GIR No. AAECS 0826 R vihykFkhZ@ Appellant izR;FkhZ@

Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Pravin Saraswant, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing: 23/01/2025 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 12/03/2025 vkns'k@

ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld.

PCIT, Jaipur-1 dated 28.03.2024 passed under section 263 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT grossly erred in passing an order u/s 263 of the Act, ignoring the detailed submissions made by the assessee in response to notice u/s 263 and, in passing the impugned order on assumptions, presumptions, conjectures and surmises, which are bad in law.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order u/s 263 passed by ld. PCIT is unsustainable as the power to revise the order can be invoked in the case of lack of enquiry, not in the case of inadequate enquiry or non-application of mind by AO. The issue raised by ld. PCIT in notice u/s 263 was already before the AO and as such the jurisdiction on this issue cannot be usurped by the ld. PCIT.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax erred in passing the impugned order u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act by holding that the AO failed to examine the ‘Interest claimed as part of the capital cost’

u/s 48, which is wholly unjustified, bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. PCIT erred by holding that AO has failed to examine the issue of change in the method of stock valuation. As this issue was not before the AO, it is a settled principle of law the PCIT cannot exercise the power of revision to look into any other issue which the AO himself could not look into.

5. That the appellant craves leave to reserve to itself the right to add, alter, amend, substitute and withdraw and/or any ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of the hearing.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 on 11.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. Subsequently, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, selected the case for scrutiny after necessary approval of the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-1, Jaipur as per provisions of section 151 of the IT Act, 1961 with the following reasons :-

“ 1. Brief details of information collected/received by the AO. As per information available on INSIGHT portal uploaded by DIT (I&CI), the assessee has sold immovable property of Rs. 2,80,07,581/-.

2. Analysis of information collected/received : On analysis of information, it has been emerged that as per INSIGHT portal sale of immovable property is of Rs. 2,80,07,581/- and the assessee has declared full value of consideration of Rs. 1,80,07,581/- but has claimed cost of acquisition and improvement with indexation of Rs. 3,08,93,570/- which has resulted in Long Term Capital Loss of Rs. 28,85,989/-. The assessee has not provided any evidence for claim of indexed cost of acquisition and improvement in proceedings before DIT (I&CI)”.

Accordingly, notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2021 was served on the assessee. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the faceless assessment unit. Accordingly, notices under section 142(1) were i