9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 445 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - exemption claimed u/s 54B - AO initiated the reassessment proceedings solely on the reason that assessee and his wife has sold the agricultural land and made reinvestment and claimed exemption under section 54B - HELD THAT - . In the present case since reassessment proceedings have been initiated solely on the reason that assessee has availed exemption under section 54B by making investment in the name of his wife and issue was covered in favour of the assessee on the day of filing of the return of income and initiation of reassessment proceedings by Judgment of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gurnam Singh 2008 (4) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT therefore, if the assessing officer has not mentioned the details in the reassessment order, it would not be fatal to the case of the assessee. The view of the assessing officer was sustainable in Law, therefore, the Ld. Pr. CIT should not have substituted the view of the assessing officer without any just cause. We, therefore, do not find the reassessment order to be erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests of revenue. We do not find any justification for Ld. Pr. CIT to invoke the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the above reasons. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order under section 263 of the Income-Tax Act and restore the original reassessment order.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings. 2. Applicability of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act for investment in the name of the assessee's wife. 3. Examination of the source of investment. 4. Applicability of Section 269SS and 271D regarding cash transactions. 5. Audit objection as a basis for revision under Section 263. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Reassessment Proceedings: The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis that the assessee had not disclosed long-term capital gains from the sale of land. The assessee responded that the original return should be considered in response to the notice under Section 148. The reassessment order accepted the returned income. The Ld. Pr. CIT found discrepancies and issued a show-cause notice under Section 263. The Tribunal noted that the reassessment proceedings themselves were invalid as they were initiated on the same issue already covered by the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal held that an invalid reassessment order cannot be revised under Section 263. 2. Applicability of Section 54B of the Income Tax Act: The assessee claimed exemption under Section 54B for investment in agricultural land in the name of his wife. The Ld. Pr. CIT rejected this, citing that the investment must be in the name of the assessee. The Tribunal referred to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Gurnam Singh, which allowed such an exemption even if the investment was made in the name of a dependent family member. The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim was valid as per the prevailing legal position at the time of filing the return and initiation of reassessment. 3. Examination of the Source of Investment: The Ld. Pr. CIT noted that the source of investment was not properly examined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee explained that the investment was made from the sale proceeds of the agricultural land. The Tribunal found that the source of investment was adequately explained and supported by documentary evidence, which was not disputed by the Ld. Pr. CIT. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the reassessment order was not erroneous on this ground. 4. Applicability of Section 269SS and 271D Regarding Cash Transactions: The Ld. Pr. CIT raised concerns about cash transactions violating Section 269SS and 271D. The assessee contended that these provisions were not applicable for the assessment year in question. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. Pr. CIT did not provide a finding on this explanation, implying acceptance. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's position that these provisions were not applicable to the assessment year under appeal. 5. Audit Objection as a Basis for Revision Under Section 263: The Tribunal observed that the revision proceedings were initiated based on an audit objection. It referred to the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Sohana Woollen Mills, which held that an audit objection alone does not justify revision under Section 263. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. Pr. CIT's reliance on the audit objection was not sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under Section 263. Conclusion: The Tribunal found that the reassessment order was valid and in accordance with the law, specifically the jurisdictional High Court's decision favoring the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order under Section 263 and restored the original reassessment order, allowing the appeal of the assessee.
|
