Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (12) TMI 594 - ITAT SURATRevision u/s 263 by CIT - assessee claimed deduction under section 54B against the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) earned thereon, on purchase of another agriculture land at Ved Karada, Surat - HELD THAT:- We have seen the copy of photographs which shows that vacant portion of the land is in cultivation form. The copies of same photographs are available in the assessment record, which were taken at the instance of inspector. No unusual things are seen in these photographs, which may suggest that the said land is used for other than agriculture purpose. We have also seen the copy of the sale deed dated 30.03.2015, executed by assessee in favour of the purchaser, wherein the nature of land is clearly mentioned as “agriculture land”. Further in the land record in Form-7/12, the nature of land is also mentioned as agriculture. The Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of sale deed has accepted the nature of land as agriculture. And form the other evidence placed before us, the assessee has shown that the land in question was used for agriculture purpose. Considering the aforesaid evidence, wherein the assessee has clearly demonstrated that the land under question was being used for agriculture purpose, therefore, we are of the view that the assessing officer has taken a reasonable and plausible view, which cannot be branded as erroneous. Since, the assessing officer has accepted the explanation of assessee, which was coupled with evidence; the assessing officer may not have thought to pass detailed order on the issue examined by her. In our view, once the contention of the assessee on a particular issue is accepted by assessing officer, the order is not appealable order and no appeal would be filed, against such accepted position as an assessee will not feel aggrieved with it, it is not necessary to give reasons of acceptance of such pleas. So far as the observation of ld PCIT that the assessing officer did nothing to sort out the enquiry to verify the assertion of the assessee and there was failure on the part of Assessing Officer to bring on record the even correct facts or non-conduct of enquiry verification of facts, is concerned, we find that the assessing officer made requisite investigation before allowing relief to the assessee. The investigation conducted and the view adopted by the assessing officer in the present case, if not accepted by the Ld. PCIT, in nothing but change of opinion. It is settled position in law that no revision of assessment order is permissible on mere change of opinion. On the basis of material before the assessing officer, she took reasonable, plausible and legally sustainable view, which cannot be branded as erroneous. There is no doubt that while accepting the claim in the assessment, there may be some loss of revenue, tax can be levied only with the authority of law, and every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view adopted by assessing permissible in law. Once the assessing officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the assessing officer is unsustainable in law. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
|