2020 (10) TMI 1206 - HC - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - order of reassessment proceedings cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of revenue - HELD THAT - No question of law arising in the present appeals by the Revenue, as the learned Tribunal has clearly noted in its impugned order quoted above that the above capital gains have already been subjected to tax in the subsequent assessment years AY 1988-1999 to 2000-2001. He submitted that for the present assessment year AY 1997-98, even though the Assessing Authority himself has accepted that there were no transfer of land in the Joint Venture Agreement for development of the property had taken place in this AY 1997-98, still by resorting to Section 263, it cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interests of Revenue, as held by the learned Commissioner, which has been rightly set aside by the learned Tribunal by the impugned order and therefore, no question of law arises.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal by Revenue against Tribunal's order under section 263 - Setting aside of CIT's order - Prejudicial to interest of revenue - Capital gains tax assessment for AY 1997-98 - Death of both assessees - No question of law arising.

Analysis:
The High Court of Madras dealt with appeals filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's order arising from the assessment for the year 1997-98. The Tribunal had quashed the order under section 263, stating that the reassessment proceedings were not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal found that the capital gains had already been taxed in subsequent assessment years, from 1998-99 to 2000-01. The Court noted that both the assessees, a mother and son, had passed away. The counsel for the assessees argued that since the capital gains had been taxed in later years and no transfer of land occurred in the relevant year, the order under section 263 was rightly set aside by the Tribunal. The Court agreed that no question of law arose as the tax had been assessed and paid by the assessees, who were deceased.

The primary issue revolved around whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the Commissioner's order under section 263 on the grounds that the reassessment proceedings were not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the capital gains had already been taxed in subsequent years, rendering the order under section 263 unnecessary. The Court concurred with this reasoning and found no legal question to be addressed in the present case, especially considering the demise of both assessees.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision to set aside the order under section 263. The Court emphasized that since the capital gains had already been assessed and paid by the assessees, and with their passing, there was no further legal issue to be deliberated upon. Consequently, the appeals were deemed liable to be dismissed, and no costs were awarded in the matter.