Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 104 - ITAT AHMEDABADRevision u/s 263 - as alleged assessee failed to produce evidences for the Land levelling, Fencing, Consultation charges, and Land development expenses claimed in the computation of Long Term Capital Gain - HELD THAT:- PCIT failed to consider the other replies filed by the assessee which clearly spelt about the Long Term Capital Gain and Non-production of the alleged expenses which incurred in the year 2007. However such expenditure was not disallowed by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment for that particular assessment year. As rightly pointed out by assessee, as per clause (b) of section 142(1) of the Act, the A.O. cannot call for the details pertaining to period more than three years to the previous year and as per Rule 6F of the Income Tax Rules, the assessee was expected to keep the records, books of accounts for the last six assessment years. Now by this Revision proceedings, the Ld. PCIT holds that the assessee failed to produce evidences for the Land levelling, Fencing, Consultation charges, and Land development expenses of Rs. 49,08,263/- claimed in the computation of Long Term Capital Gain. It is well settled principle of law that where two views are possible and one view has been adopted by the AO then existence of other possible view alone would not be sufficient to exercise powers under section 263. Assessee claimed carry forward loss for the present Assessment Year 2018-19 which is not yet been fully set off as against the Assessment Year 2022-23. Thus there is no Revenue loss to the department by invoking this Revision proceedings. PCIT partially looking into the assessment records and initiated the Revision proceedings on the ground that the assessee failed to submit evidences in support of the expenses, which is factually incorrect. Unless both the ingredients i.e order must be erroneous in nature; and the error must be such that it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are present in a given case, it is not legally permissible for a Commissioner to initiate suo motu proceeding under section 263 of the Act, the same has been upheld in case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] However, an assessment cannot be revised if there is no jurisdictional error in the order or if it has been passed after due application of mind or in case where PCIT has a view different from that taken by A.O. Therefore we have no hesitation in quashing the Revision order passed by the Ld. PCIT. Assessee appeal allowed.
|