Allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that several notices were issued to assessee and detailed hearings were conducted. Assessing Officer in its order had mentioned details of all properties with dates of purchase and sale and from perusal of same it was evident that properties were brought and sold within a maximum period of 20 months which showed that assessee was engaged in real estate business. Assessing Officer had conducted sufficient enquiry as required under Explanation 2(a) to section 263 of the Act. Revision order is held to be not justified. (AY. 2009-10)
K. R. Satyanarayana v. CIT (2021) 279 Taxman 175 (Karn.)(HC)
S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Business income or capital gains-Revision is held to be not justified. [S. 28(i), 45]