2022 (10) TMI 352 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - As per CIT, AO has not applied his mind and allowed the capital gain offered by the assessee with a lessor consideration and without ascertaining the correct cost of acquisition and cost of indexation adopted - How assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue? - HELD THAT - There is no prejudicial to the interest of Revenue as for the present assessment year, as the assessee paid tax under the MAT provisions u/s. 115JB only and no tax payable under the normal provisions of the Income Tax Act because of carry forward losses. In our considered view, the present Revision proceedings itself is unjustifiable. It is not the case that the assessee declared the details during the assessment proceedings. The assessee has given the break-up of the entire sale consideration by its e-mail reply dated 27.07.2020. Similarly the Cost of Indexation of the property and the working thereon was also given by the assessee and the Cost Inflation Index is pertaining to the Financial Year 1997-98. After considering the above details, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order which is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Therefore the Revision proceedings initiated by the Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 is hereby quashed. Thus the grounds raised by the assessee are hereby allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged underreporting of sale consideration by Rs. 48,00,000/-.
3. Correctness of the cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee.
4. Prejudicial impact on the interest of revenue despite tax being paid under Minimum Alternative Tax (MAT) provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Validity of the Order Passed Under Section 263:
The appellant contended that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in invoking section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the Assessing Officer (AO) had neither committed any error nor was the assessment order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The appellant argued that all necessary details were submitted during the original assessment proceedings, and the AO had duly verified these details before passing the assessment order. The appellant relied on various case laws to support the claim that the invocation of section 263 was invalid.

2. Alleged Underreporting of Sale Consideration by Rs. 48,00,000/-:
The PCIT noticed that the assessee had sold two plots for Rs. 37.98 Crores but computed capital gains on Rs. 37.50 Crores, thereby allegedly underreporting the sale consideration by Rs. 48,00,000/-. The appellant argued that the full sale consideration of Rs. 37.98 Crores was disclosed during the assessment proceedings and verified by the AO. The appellant provided detailed replies and documentary evidence to substantiate the sale consideration, asserting that there was no error in the assessment order.

3. Correctness of the Cost of Acquisition Claimed by the Assessee:
The PCIT observed that the AO failed to verify the cost of acquisition claimed by the assessee, which was indexed at Rs. 1,55,86,793/-. The appellant contended that the cost of acquisition was correctly claimed and supported by documentary evidence submitted during the assessment proceedings. The AO had verified these details and accepted the cost of acquisition after due consideration.

4. Prejudicial Impact on the Interest of Revenue Despite Tax Being Paid Under MAT Provisions:
The appellant argued that the assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of revenue as the tax was paid under the MAT provisions, resulting in no additional tax liability under normal provisions. The appellant provided a detailed computation of income, showing that the tax liability remained the same under MAT provisions, even if the alleged underreporting and cost of acquisition issues were considered. The appellant cited a jurisdictional High Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamal Galani to support the argument that the revision proceedings were unjustifiable.

Conclusion:
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials on record, the tribunal found that the AO had duly verified all necessary details during the assessment proceedings. The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided a detailed breakup of the sale consideration and the cost of acquisition, which were considered by the AO. The tribunal held that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Consequently, the revision proceedings initiated by the PCIT under section 263 were quashed, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 07-10-2022.