9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 354 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - as per CIT(A) section 54F of the Act could not be allowed since assessee had returned capital gains after the detection - Held that - CIT in his order mentions that assessee has sold two sites on 24.07.2008, whereas the first property against which exemption u/s.54F of the Act was purchased on 13.03.2008 and the second property was purchased on 06.08.2008. Obviously the first property was purchased prior to the sale of the sites on 24.07.2008. Disabling clauses (ii) and (iii) above only mentions purchase or construction within a period of one year / three years after the date of transfer. It does not deal with a case where the purchase is prior to the date of transfer. Even from this angle we cannot say that the AO s decision to allow the claim u/s.54F of the Act was based on a view which was unlawful or illegal or not possible. In our opinion effort of the CIT was to substitute his view in place of a possible and lawful view taken by the AO, that too after enquiries. In other words, we are of the opinion that the order of AO did not have any error which was prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. Order of CIT u/s.263 of the Act is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Invocation of powers u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act by CIT-V despite explanations provided by the assessee during original assessment proceedings. 2. Verification of nexus between sale consideration of assets and cash deposits in the bank account. 3. Eligibility for exemption u/s.54F of the Act. 4. Discrepancies between the notice u/s.263 and final order u/s.263. 5. Adequacy of the assessment done by the AO. Issue 1: Invocation of powers u/s.263 The appeal was filed by the assessee against the invocation of powers u/s.263 by CIT-V, alleging that the CIT had not verified the nexus between the sale consideration of assets and cash deposits in the bank account, and had questioned the eligibility for exemption u/s.54F of the Act. The assessee contended that the AO had considered and accepted the explanations provided during the assessment proceedings, and the CIT was attempting a roving enquiry under the guise of exercising powers u/s.263. Issue 2: Verification of Nexus The CIT raised concerns regarding the nexus between the sale consideration of assets and cash deposits in the bank account, leading to the conclusion that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue. However, the AO had conducted an enquiry and accepted the claim that the deposits in the bank account were from the sale of assets, supported by the production of sale deeds. The Tribunal found that the AO had indeed conducted an enquiry, and the CIT's view was an attempt to substitute his judgment for a lawful view taken by the AO. Issue 3: Eligibility for Exemption u/s.54F The eligibility of the assessee for exemption u/s.54F of the Act was questioned by the CIT based on the timing of property purchases in relation to the sale of assets. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant provisions and found that the AO's decision to allow the exemption was not unlawful or erroneous. The CIT's attempt to disallow the claim was deemed unjustified, as the AO's decision was based on lawful grounds. Issue 4: Discrepancies in Notice and Final Order The assessee highlighted discrepancies between the notice u/s.263 and the final order, emphasizing that the CIT's initial concerns were not reflected in the final decision. The Tribunal noted the discrepancies but focused on the substance of the issues raised and the adequacy of the assessment done by the AO, ultimately setting aside the CIT's order u/s.263. Issue 5: Adequacy of Assessment The Tribunal examined the adequacy of the assessment conducted by the AO, emphasizing that the AO had performed necessary enquiries and accepted the explanations provided by the assessee regarding the source of deposits in the bank account. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's decision was lawful, and the CIT's intervention through u/s.263 was unwarranted. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the CIT's order u/s.263 of the Income-tax Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of conducting thorough assessments and ensuring that decisions are based on lawful grounds, ultimately protecting the interests of both the assessee and the Revenue.
|
