9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed on the entire building. It has been claimed only on 1/6th portion of the building and the income from remaining 5/6th portion was offered to tax under the head 'income from house property'. That has been thoroughly examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings and that is evident from the fact that he has made an addition of 4,31,298/under this head 'income from house property'. The claim for deduction of 31.05 crores was the second aspect which was examined by the Commissioner. Insofar as that is concerned, the Tribunal found that the claim was of deduction as there was an end to the litigation. It is only when the litigation ended that the building could be sold. The payment has been made as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , this is not a case where, on a working of the capital gain by the Assessing Officer, he has committed any error. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner. - Decided against revenue X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m which has been examined and not the entire issue. 6. Even with regard to the second issue, the Assessing Officer's premise that there was an encumbrance on the property and unless and until that was removed, the property could not be sold was patently erroneous. Hence, according to Mr. Mohanty, this is not a case of mere change of opinion but the satisfaction was based on the language of Section 263 of the IT Act. The ingredients thereof are fully attracted and satisfied in this case. 7. On a perusal of the order of the Assessing Officer, that of the Commissioner and the Tribunal, we are unable to agree with Mr. Mohanty. 8. It is apparent that the power has to be exercised in terms of the law. The Tribunal found that in view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as that is concerned, the Commissioner found that the assessee appeared before him, but was unable to satisfy the Commissioner as to how the assessment order is correct. 11. The Commissioner in paragraph 4 of his order at page 52 of the paper book, held that the assessee made a wrong computation of capital gains by claiming deductions actually not allowable by law and the Assessing Officer passed the order by mechanically accepting the computation of the assessee. That is how his order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 12. As far as this aspect is concerned, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner has perused the documents but failed to note that as far as the first issue is concerned, the deprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n office and eventually disposed of. Insofar as that disposal is concerned as well, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's order was not erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law. Once the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view of the matter and the Tribunal has given cogent and satisfactory reasons for interfering with the order of the Commissioner, then we do not think that any substantial question of law arises from this exercise. The Tribunal in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the order under challenge, found that the observation of the Commissioner that the expenditure incurred for payment to shareholders is not deductible i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
