2016 (2) TMI 90 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - exemption u/s 54F alowed to assessee - Held that - Before the Ld. CIT as well as before us the assessee had duly demonstrated that the assessee had claimed exemption against property purchased at Dosti and another property at Hiranandani Maitry Park was under construction for which only advance was given and assessee had not acquired any possession of the said property. Otherwise also the said property was jointly held by his mother who was the first holder and the assessee was the second holder. Once the assessee has invested the entire LTCG arising from the sale of shares and the said gain has been invested entirely in the purchase of flat in his name within the time period given in section 54F then assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 54F from such LTCG. Ld. CIT has not disputed this contention of the assessee raised before him but has simply set aside the assessment to the AO to examine it afresh. Such an exercise by the CIT cannot be appreciated firstly he should give specific finding as to why such a contention raised by the assessee is not correct or divorced from the facts and material records and secondly how on the facts the order of the AO is actually erroneous and also prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Simply mentioning the phrase in the order that the assessment order is erroneous and so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is not sufficient - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues:
Assessment order set aside by CIT u/s 263 - Claim for exemption u/s 54/54F - Proper application of mind by AO - Examination of facts and evidence - Prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

Analysis:

1. Assessment Order Set Aside by CIT u/s 263:
The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai considered an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -27 Mumbai under section 263. The CIT set aside the assessment order passed under section 143(3) for the assessment year 2010-11, citing that it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The issue revolved around the claim for exemption under sections 54/54F.

2. Claim for Exemption u/s 54/54F:
The assessee, an individual, had shown income from salary, capital gain, and other sources. The CIT observed that the assessee had claimed exemption under sections 54/54F in the computation of long-term capital gain. The assessee had sold unquoted shares and a flat, resulting in a significant long-term capital gain. The CIT raised concerns regarding the eligibility of the gain for exemption under section 54F due to the ownership of multiple residential properties at different times.

3. Proper Application of Mind by AO:
The assessee submitted detailed responses and documentary evidence during the assessment proceedings, addressing queries raised by the AO regarding LTCG and property purchases. The AO had sought information on LTCG, purchase agreements, and sources of investment multiple times, and the assessee had provided the necessary details. The Tribunal noted that the AO had adequately examined the facts and evidence before allowing the exemption under section 54F.

4. Examination of Facts and Evidence:
The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had diligently reviewed the details provided by the assessee, including the purchase agreements, sources of investment, and documentary evidence related to LTCG and property transactions. The Tribunal found that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's claim for exemption was based on a thorough examination of the relevant information.

5. Prejudicial to the Interest of Revenue:
The Tribunal analyzed whether the CIT's decision to set aside the assessment order was justified. It was highlighted that the CIT failed to provide specific reasons or findings to demonstrate how the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT's action lacked sufficient justification and that the AO had appropriately considered the exemption claim under section 54F.

6. Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the CIT's order passed under section 263. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO had diligently examined the issue of exemption under section 54F during the assessment proceedings, and the CIT's decision lacked proper justification. The Tribunal's decision was based on the thorough review of the facts, evidence, and legal provisions related to the claim for exemption.

By thoroughly analyzing the issues related to the assessment order, claim for exemption under sections 54/54F, proper application of mind by the AO, and the justification for setting aside the assessment order, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai provided a detailed and comprehensive judgment, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee.

← Previous Next →