2019 (4) TMI 694 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - non consideration of stamp duty value by AO for computation of capital gain - applicability of section 50C - No specific mention regarding substitution of stamp duty valuation against actual sale consideration for computation of capital gain - Reply of assessee also not satisfactory - HELD THAT - The view canvassed by the assessee, in our considered view, was unsustainable in law. Therefore, even if the matter was examined by the Assessing Officer and it was a conscious call of the Assessing Officer to accept the plea of the assessee, such a situation would not take the matter outside the ambit of Section 263 as the view adopted by the Assessing Officer was clearly unsustainable in law. Having said that, we must add that there can be other legal reasons for grant of relief on merits, and that area is not yet explored by, or before, us. In any case, all that the learned Commissioner has directed is examination of the claim on merits and, for the above reason, we see no infirmity in that direction - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:

1. Challenge to the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. Justification of the revisionary powers exercised by the Commissioner.
3. Discrepancy in the assessment leading to under-assessment of income under the head capital gain.
4. Adequacy of the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the application of Section 50C.

Issue 1:

The appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13. The appellant contended that the Commissioner was not justified in exercising revisionary powers under section 263 and remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the claim and genuineness of the details/documents submitted during the proceedings. The appellant's grievance was that the assessment was finalized without proper investigation, leading to under-assessment of income under the head capital gain.

Issue 2:

The Commissioner initiated revision proceedings under section 263 after finding that the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Despite the explanation provided by the assessee and the consideration of stamp duty valuation, the Commissioner was not satisfied with the assessment order. The Commissioner directed the Assessing Officer to examine the matter afresh and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the Assessing Officer had already considered the matter adequately.

Issue 3:

The discrepancy in the assessment arose from the sale of land jointly by the assessee with co-owners. The Commissioner observed that the sale consideration used for calculating the assessee's share of taxable capital gain was significantly lower than the jantri value on which stamp duty was collected. This resulted in income remaining untaxed, leading to under-assessment of income under the head capital gain.

Issue 4:

The explanation provided by the assessee regarding the application of Section 50C was found to be insufficient and legally unsustainable. The Assessing Officer's acceptance of the plea was considered unsustainable in law, leading to the conclusion that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Tribunal upheld the revision order, emphasizing that the Assessing Officer must re-examine the claim on merits without being influenced by the Tribunal's prima facie impression. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision was pronounced on March 4, 2019.