9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1190 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - not allowing deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 54F - Whether Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Nagpur erred in not allowing relief u/s. 54 as well as index cost of acquisition improvement and also purchase cost which was allowed by the assessing officer and considered in the original assessment passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act therefore ex-party order passed is unjustified unwarranted and excessive? - HELD THAT - The sale consideration got by the assessee is only by way of book adjustment towards the cost of apartment No. 102 in the proposed scheme on the above said plot to be constructed by the vendee i.e. M/s Green City Builders (purchaser) and in this way the assessee had sold the plot in question vide sale deed dated 06/06/2014 to M/s Green City Builders for 61.00 lacs. However instead of getting the said amount in cash the assessee had agreed to get one flat No. 102 in the proposed scheme on the above said plot to be constructed by the said M/s Green City Builders i.e. the purchaser. The said recitals in the sale deed proposed that the assessee had got the sale consideration only by way of book adjustment towards cost of apartment No. 102 and the entire amount of the sale consideration was invested by the assessee in purchase of apartment No. 102 in lieu of sale of the property in question and in this way the entire amount was invested and no amount was received by the assessee. All those facts were placed on record by the assessee before the A.O. and thus in this way the A.O. had passed the order of assessment after considering the facts placed on record by the assessee. In view of the above all the details were duly furnished by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings alongwith the supporting documents and same aspect were also examined by the A.O. in the assessment order and the A.O. has also calculated computation of capital gain in the assessment order itself and the entire consideration were directly invested for purchase of residential apartment which is evident from the sale deed therefore there is no question of any irregularity in order passed U/s. 143(3) As assessee has fully explained his entire case and we agree with the ld. AR s submission and entire details were duly examined by the A.O. which were evident from the assessment order U/s. 143(3) of the Act and no ambiguity has been found by us. Therefore the order passed by the ld. Pr. CIT u/s. 263(1) of the Act is hereby quashed and the assessment framed by the A.O. U/s. 143(3) of the Act is upheld. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the ex-parte order passed under Section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Denial of deduction claimed under Section 54F. 3. Denial of relief under Section 54 and indexation of cost of acquisition and improvement. 4. Lack of reasonable opportunity to be heard before passing the ex-parte order. 5. Non-consideration of the written submission by the assessee. 6. Consideration of issues already discussed in the assessment order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Ex-Parte Order Passed Under Section 263(1): The assessee challenged the legality of the ex-parte order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263(1), claiming it was illegal, invalid, and bad in law. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided all relevant documents during the assessment proceedings, which were duly considered by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal found that the AO had examined the facts and documents, and therefore, the order passed under Section 143(3) was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 2. Denial of Deduction Claimed Under Section 54F: The PCIT denied the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 54F, despite the assessee being entitled to it as reflected in the sale deed. The Tribunal noted that the sale consideration was adjusted towards the cost of an apartment, and the entire amount was invested in the purchase of the apartment. The AO had considered these facts and allowed the deduction. The Tribunal upheld the AO's decision, finding no irregularity in the assessment order. 3. Denial of Relief Under Section 54 and Indexation of Cost of Acquisition and Improvement: The PCIT also denied relief under Section 54 and the indexation of the cost of acquisition and improvement. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided evidence of the ancestral property and its valuation as of 01/04/1981. The AO had considered these details and allowed the relief. The Tribunal found that the AO's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts and documents, and therefore, the PCIT's order was unjustified. 4. Lack of Reasonable Opportunity to be Heard: The assessee argued that the PCIT did not grant a reasonable opportunity to be heard before passing the ex-parte order. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was decided ex-parte but had placed relevant documents on record. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a fair hearing and found that the PCIT's order lacked this essential element, making it unjustified. 5. Non-Consideration of the Written Submission by the Assessee: The assessee contended that the PCIT did not consider the entire written submission before passing the order under Section 263(1). The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and supporting documents provided by the assessee and found that the AO had duly considered these during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's failure to consider these submissions rendered the order invalid. 6. Consideration of Issues Already Discussed in the Assessment Order: The assessee argued that the PCIT reconsidered issues already discussed and verified in the assessment order. The Tribunal noted that the AO had examined the sale deed, cost of acquisition, and the investment in the apartment. The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was based on a re-examination of the same issues without any new evidence, making the order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of justice. Conclusion: The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the PCIT under Section 263(1) and upheld the assessment framed by the AO under Section 143(3). The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing that the AO had conducted a thorough examination of the facts and documents, and the PCIT's order lacked merit and fairness.
|
