9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1623 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - assessee had shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) which was claimed as exempt under section 10(38) and A.O. had not questioned the assessee for calling of the reasonability and justification for the aforesaid LTCG - HELD THAT - A.O. conducted enquiry and had taken a possible view and the Ld. Pr. CIT simply directed the A.O. to make further enquiry in accordance with law but had not taken any step to make enquiry herself and also did not point out that how and in what manner the enquiries made by the A.O. were not sufficient. We therefore are of the view that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in holding the assessment order dt. 28/10/2015 passed by the A.O. as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, therefore the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Consideration of replies and submissions by the Commissioner of Income Tax. 3. Validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Legality and sustainability of the Commissioner of Income Tax's order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue is whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) rightly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 to set aside the assessment order dated 28.10.2015. The Assessee argued that the order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Pr. CIT observed that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) did not properly question the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of ?37,17,800/- claimed as exempt under Section 10(38), making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. However, the Tribunal found that the A.O. had indeed made inquiries and taken a possible view, thus the assumption of jurisdiction by the Pr. CIT was not justified. 2. Consideration of Replies and Submissions by the Commissioner of Income Tax: The Assessee contended that the Pr. CIT failed to consider various replies and submissions made during the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. had issued a detailed questionnaire and received comprehensive responses from the Assessee, including proof of investments and sources. The Pr. CIT, however, did not conduct any further inquiry herself and merely directed the A.O. to reassess the issue, which was deemed insufficient by the Tribunal. 3. Validity of the Assessment Order Passed by the Assessing Officer: The Assessee argued that the assessment order was passed after due application of mind by the A.O., who had considered all relevant materials and submissions. The Tribunal found that the A.O. had indeed made detailed inquiries into the investments and LTCG claimed by the Assessee. The A.O. had accepted the Assessee's claims after proper verification, which was a possible and reasonable view. The Tribunal cited several judgments, including Pr. CIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. and ITO vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd., supporting the stance that an order passed after adequate inquiry cannot be deemed erroneous merely because the Pr. CIT believes further inquiry was needed. 4. Legality and Sustainability of the Commissioner of Income Tax's Order: The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT's order was erroneous and arbitrary. The Pr. CIT did not provide specific findings on how the A.O.'s inquiries were insufficient or erroneous. The Tribunal emphasized that for exercising jurisdiction under Section 263, the Pr. CIT must conduct minimal inquiry and provide clear reasons for considering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's order, reinstating the original assessment order passed by the A.O. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Pr. CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the A.O. had made adequate inquiries and taken a reasonable view. The appeal by the Assessee was allowed, and the Pr. CIT's order was set aside. The judgment underscores the necessity for the Pr. CIT to conduct their own inquiries and provide detailed reasons when exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 263.
|
