आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” (cid:13)ायपीठ चे(cid:18)ई म(cid:21)। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय (cid:24)ी एबी टी. वक(cid:28), (cid:13)ाियक सद(cid:31) एवं

माननीय (cid:24)ी मनोज कु मार अ$वाल ,लेखा सद(cid:31) के सम&।

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.1592/Chny/2024 (िनधा’रणवष’ / Assessment Year: 2016-17)

M/s SEBCO Property Private Limited PCIT (Central)

बनाम/

24D, Mahalakshmi Nagar, Chennai-2.

Vs.

K.K. Nagar, Trichy-620 021.

(cid:2)थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAOCS-0810-R (अपीलाथ(cid:28)/Appellant) : ((cid:31) थ(cid:28) / Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:28)कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri R. Venkata Raman (CA) - Ld.AR (cid:31) थ(cid:28)कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) - Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 23-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25-03-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1. By way of this appeal, the assessee assails invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Chennai-2 (Pr.CIT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 vide impugned order dated 25-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 31-03-2022. The grounds taken by the assessee are as under: -

1. That the revision order dated 25.03.2024 passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 2, Chennai ["Ld. PCIT"] u/s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ["Act"] is without jurisdiction, bad in law and barred by limitation.

2. That the Assessment Order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, thus the Ld. PCIT erred in initiating revisionary proceedings u/s.263 of the Act.

3. That the Ld. PCIT failed to appreciate that the Ld. CIT(A)- 19 vide order dated 18.03.2024 passed for the Assessment Year 2017-18 has held that the value of opening stock of Rs.36,42,36,999/- adopted by the Assessing officer in completing the assessment for the AY 2017-18 has no basis and accordingly held that the value of Rs.25,46,72,181/-

returned by the appellant is correct.

4. That the Ld. PCIT erred in initiating revisionary proceedings in respect of an issue which has already been decided in favour of the appellant by the Ld. CIT(A)

5. That the Ld. PCIT erred in holding that there is undervaluation of closing stock to the extent of Rs.10,95,64,818/-.

6. That the Ld. PCIT ought to have appreciated that there is no incriminating material to corroborate the value of closing stock at Rs.36,42,36,999/-, consequently there is no error in the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer.

2. The Ld. AR advanced arguments and referred to the order of Tribunal for subsequent years on the impugned issue. The Ld. CIT- DR also advanced arguments and submitted that Ld. AO failed to make requisite enquiries. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. The assessee being resident corporate assessee is stated to be engaged in real estate business.

Revisionary Proceedings before lower authorities

3.1 From the facts, it emerges that the assessee’s return of income was subjected to proceedings u/s 153A pursuant to search action on assessee on 22-03-2021. The Ld. AO accepted the returned income vide order dated 31-03-2022. The assessment was framed on best judgment basis as is evident from corrigendum issued by Ld. AO on 24-05-2022. Subsequently, upon perusal of case records, Ld. Pr. CIT noted that the assessee admitted closing stock of Rs.25.46 Crores in its return of income. However, in AY 2017-18, Ld. AO adopted opening stock of Rs.36.42 Crores instead of Rs.25.46 Crores as admitted by the assessee in the return of income. Having adopted value of Rs.36.42 Crores for AY 2017-18, Ld. AO should have adopted same value in AY 2016-17. In such a situation the assessment so framed would be prejudicial to the inte