2015 (5) TMI 813 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - examination of sale of property and genuineness of long term capital gains - Held that - The details called for by the Assessing Officer were furnished by the assessee and such details were accepted by the Assessing Officer and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a lack of enquiry. There was an enquiry, though it is inadequate and in such circumstances, in view of the above decisions, the Commissioner of Income Tax lacks jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act to revise the assessment order. Thus, respectfully following the said decisions of CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. 2009 (9) TMI 633 - Delhi High Court and CIT Vs. Development Bank Ltd 2010 (2) TMI 161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT we set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Income Tax - Decided in favour of assesse.

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 for assessment year 2009-10 challenging assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act regarding indexed cost of acquisition for long term capital gains.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment Order Challenge
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner's order under section 263 for the assessment year 2009-10, contesting the assessment made under section 143(3) of the Act concerning the indexed cost of acquisition for long term capital gains. The Commissioner held that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue due to insufficient inquiries by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 2: Assessee's Submission
The assessee argued that all necessary details regarding long term capital gains were provided during the scrutiny assessment proceedings, including the indexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer accepted the calculations furnished by the assessee, and the assessment was completed accordingly. The assessee contended that since all documents supporting the calculations were submitted and considered by the Assessing Officer, the assessment order was not erroneous.

Issue 3: Legal Precedents
The counsel for the assessee cited judgments such as CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. and CIT Vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. to support the argument that when all required materials are submitted to the Assessing Officer, even if there is inadequate inquiry, the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction under section 263 to revise the order. The decisions emphasized the distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry."

Issue 4: Tribunal Decision
After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had called for and received all necessary details from the assessee regarding long term capital gains and indexed cost of acquisition. It was noted that the Assessing Officer accepted the information provided by the assessee and completed the assessment. The Tribunal concluded that there was an inquiry, albeit inadequate, and based on the legal precedents cited, the Commissioner had wrongly exercised powers under section 263.

Conclusion
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the Commissioner's order under section 263. The decision was based on the finding that there was an inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer, even though it was deemed inadequate. The Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal principles established in the cited judgments, emphasizing that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revise the assessment order in such circumstances.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the ultimate decision of the Tribunal in favor of the assessee.

← Previous Next →