9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 834 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - enhancing the long term capital gain - order erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue - Held that - From going through the above series of events occurred during the course of assessment proceedings we observe that to a specific query raised during the assessment proceedings the assessee has given a specific reply which was accepted by the Ld.AO which resulted in fetching more Revenue to the income tax department because of applying the rate of land as on 01/04/1981 at ₹ 290 per sq.mt. as against ₹ 380 per sq.mt. originally shown by the assessee in the income tax return. There was a sufficient enquiry about the impugned transaction to which complete details were filed by the assessee to the satisfaction of Ld.AO which resulted in enhancing the long term capital gain originally shown by the assessee. Ld.CIT s order u/s.263 of the Act is focusing on conducting additional enquiry on different pattern and also to apply fair market value of the land as on 01/04/1999 and alternatively he has mentioned about the comparable price of gold in 1999 which was quite similar to the basis taken by the valuer in the revised valuation report of Mr.P.K.Desai dated 10/08/2011 submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. In such case, where there is adequate enquiry and observations of the Ld.AO are clearly mentioned in the body of assessment order and view taken by him is permissible in law such order cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. CIT-A has wrongly assumed the jurisdiction u/s.263 of the AcT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Assessment of long-term capital gains (LTCG) on the sale of agricultural land. 3. Basis for determining the fair market value (FMV) as on 01/04/1981. 4. Adequacy of inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee challenged the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the original assessment order under section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT had invoked section 263, stating that the AO's order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, primarily due to the method used for determining the FMV of the land as on 01/04/1981. 2. Assessment of long-term capital gains (LTCG) on the sale of agricultural land: The assessee reported LTCG on the sale of agricultural land, which was jointly owned with his brother. The land was sold for ?1,89,60,000, with the assessee's 50% share being ?93,80,000. The initial FMV as on 01/04/1981 was calculated using a rate of ?380 per sq.mt., which was later revised to ?290 per sq.mt. based on a new valuation report. The AO accepted the revised FMV and assessed the LTCG accordingly. 3. Basis for determining the fair market value (FMV) as on 01/04/1981: The CIT argued that the AO should have used the Jantri rate of ?220 per sq.mt. as on 01/04/1999, adjusted using the gold price index, to determine the FMV as on 01/04/1981. The CIT contended that the valuation report used by the AO contained basic infirmities, as it relied on the gold price index and disregarded comparable sale instances without substantial evidence. 4. Adequacy of inquiry conducted by the Assessing Officer (AO): The Tribunal examined whether the AO conducted a proper inquiry during the assessment proceedings. It was noted that the AO had specifically queried the valuation of the land and had accepted a revised valuation report, which resulted in an increased LTCG and higher tax liability for the assessee. The Tribunal found that the AO had applied his mind to the facts and had conducted a thorough inquiry, making the assessment order neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the CIT had wrongly assumed jurisdiction under section 263. The AO's order was based on a detailed inquiry and was not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal quashed the CIT's order under section 263 and restored the original assessment order under section 143(3). Order: The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the CIT under section 263 was quashed. The assessment order dated 29/09/2011 was restored.
|
