9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 559 - AT - Income TaxRevision order u/s 263 - exemption of LTCG u/s 54F - sale of rights in tenanted property - AO allowed exemption - assessment revised by ld.CIT u/s 263 - assessee was dormant investor - Building looked after by assessee s wife - Lump sum consideration to treated as Income from other Sources instead of Capital Gain - Held That - As per our view, the AO raised all necessary queries regarding the claim of LTCG. We have further observed that the ld CIT after considering the facts of the case not disputed the receipt of amount of compensation and the claim of LTCG, what is disputed is that the excess of % received be treated as income from other source . Hence, the order passed by assessing officer is neither erroneous prejudicial nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. we allow the ground of appeal raised by assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT). 2. Classification of compensation received as 'Income from Other Sources' vs. 'Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)'. 3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer’s (AO) enquiry during the assessment proceedings. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Order Passed under Section 263: The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT, Mumbai, dated 21.08.2014, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The CIT issued a notice under Section 263 on the grounds that the assessee claimed a deduction under Section 54F of ?32.5 Lakhs, stating that the assessee was only a dormant investor and that the lump sum compensation should have been treated as 'Income from Other Sources' instead of 'Capital Gain'. The CIT held that the AO should have restricted the exemption to the extent of the assessee’s share (25%) and added the excess amount of ?16,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the jurisdiction under Section 263 can be exercised only when the order of the AO is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had made proper enquiries and the order passed by the AO was one of the possible views, which can never be a subject matter of revision under Section 263. Hence, the Tribunal held that the order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2. Classification of Compensation Received: The CIT contended that the compensation received by the assessee in excess of his 25% share should be treated as 'Income from Other Sources' rather than 'Capital Gain'. The assessee argued that the compensation was received as part of the sale consideration of the property and was correctly offered under the head 'LTCG'. The Tribunal observed that the AO had verified the details and recorded the statement of the co-owner, Smt. Madhavi Sunil Shah, who confirmed the transaction and the share of the sale consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the AO had taken a possible view based on the facts and evidence presented, and thus, the classification of the compensation as 'LTCG' was justified. 3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer’s Enquiry: The Tribunal examined whether the AO had made adequate and sufficient enquiries during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the AO had raised queries related to the sale consideration received on the transfer of rights in the tenanted property, issued notices under Section 133(6), and recorded the statement of Smt. Madhavi Sunil Shah. The AO verified that the assessee received ?35,25,000/- through RTGS and allowed the claim of LTCG after satisfaction. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted a thorough enquiry and that the order passed by the AO was detailed and reasoned. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the AO had made proper enquiries before granting the exemption under Section 54F. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the order passed by the AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO had made proper enquiries and that the classification of the compensation as 'LTCG' was justified. The order of the CIT under Section 263 was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was accepted.
|
