2021 (9) TMI 594 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - sale of land being long term capital gain - allocation sale consideration towards agriculture land and the other industrial land and according to CIT the allocation towards agriculture land was disproportionate - even if the proportionate to area the value is bifurcated, the allocation to the industrial land should have been more - Whether order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudice has been caused to the interest of revenue? - HELD THAT - In the instant case, while recording the conclusion that the order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, apparently the record of the assessment proceedings was not examined by the Principal CIT in its entirety and objectivity. The allocation was made on the basis of the rates adopted for stamp duty purposes and if on the said basis the allocation of the composite sale consideration has been made, such a fact cannot be ignored and cannot be said to be an erroneous judgment of the Assessing Officer. It is one of the basis on which such valuation can be accepted. It is not the case that the total value as per stamp duty purposes as per section 50C was more than what was adopted for the different capital assets being sold. The assessment order appears to have been made after due consideration of the material. In this view of the matter, the material on record and the conclusions arrived at, the proceeding initiated by the Principal CIT u/s 263 of the Act is not justified - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Invocation of section 263 by ld. Pr. CIT and setting aside of order u/s. 143(3)
2. Allocation of sale value of land and capital gains computation
3. Examination of relevant records and application of law in assessment order

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the ld. Pr. CIT invoking section 263 of the Income Tax Act, challenging the setting aside of the order passed u/s. 143(3). The appellant argued that the order u/s. 143(3) was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The Tribunal noted that the power of revision under section 263 can be exercised only if the AO's order is both erroneous and causes prejudice to revenue. The Tribunal found that the AO's decision was based on valid considerations and the revision initiated by the Principal CIT was not justified, leading to the order being set aside.

2. The case involved the sale of industrial land, factory building, and agriculture land, with different treatments for capital gains. The ld. PCIT objected to the allocation of sale consideration, deeming it disproportionate. The appellant argued that the allocation was based on government-prescribed rates and submitted detailed calculations. The Tribunal observed that the allocation was made on valid grounds, considering stamp duty rates, and found no error in the AO's decision. The Tribunal emphasized that if a valid basis for valuation was adopted, it cannot be deemed erroneous solely based on a different opinion.

3. The assessee contended that the assessment order was made after due examination of records and application of law, citing legal precedents to support their argument. The Tribunal considered these arguments, highlighting the need for the AO to have considered all relevant material on record. The Tribunal noted that as long as one possible view was taken by the AO, the order cannot be considered erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. Ultimately, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and setting aside the order under section 263.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, setting aside the order passed under section 263 by the Principal CIT. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of valid considerations in assessment orders and the need for proper examination of records before invoking revisionary powers. The detailed analysis of the sale value allocation and capital gains computation supported the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal.