Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (1) TMI 815 - AT - Income Tax


Issues:
Challenge to order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2011-12.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order dated 12.03.2021 under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee, an individual deriving income from other sources, filed a Return of Income for A.Y. 2011-12 manually on 31.03.2012, declaring total income of Rs. 56,00,004. The Assessee jointly purchased an immovable property for Rs. 81,00,000, with the co-owner paying the entire consideration. The case was reopened under section 147 as the Assessee had not filed the Return for the year of purchase. The Assessing Officer accepted the returned income after reassessment. Subsequently, the Principal Commissioner issued a notice questioning the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act. The Assessee contended that the sale deed was cancelled due to title defects, and the amount was returned. The Principal Commissioner set aside the assessment order, directing a fresh assessment to verify the Assessee's contentions. The Assessee argued that the order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue as the sale deed was cancelled, and the entire consideration was returned.

The Tribunal considered the facts and legal provisions. It noted that the sale deed was cancelled, and the consideration was repaid, making the question of invoking Section 56(2)(vii)(b) irrelevant. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, emphasizing that for Section 263 to apply, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous or prejudicial, as the sale deed cancellation was a valid reason. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner's revision order was deemed unjustified and quashed. The appeal by the Assessee was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the reassessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to Revenue, as the sale deed cancellation was a valid reason, and the invocation of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) was unwarranted. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles outlined in the Supreme Court ruling and the specific circumstances of the case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates