9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not substitute a lawful view taken by the Assessing Officer. Admittedly in this case, the assessing officer has accepted the returns filed by the respondent/assessee company and the respondent/assessee company has also given reason for adopting the revised value and also pointed out that except the said property, the company has no other property for income and also the entire shares has been transferred and also the value of the land were revised and revalued and capital gains tax also paid. Therefore, under these circumstances, this court do not find any valid reason to interfere with the order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The substantial question of law raised by the appellant/revenue is answered accordingly. Thus, we find no good reason to admit the Tax Case (Appeal) filed by the Revenue. - T. C. A. No. 7 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2020 - THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN And THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. VELMURUGAN For the Appellant : Ms. Hemalatha For the Respondent : Mr. A. S. Sriiraman JUDGMENT P. Velmurugan, J. The Tax Case Appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 263 of the Act. 2.5 Aggrieved by the said order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the revenue has filed the present Tax case Appeal before this court. 3.1. The learned Standing counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue would submit that the Assessing Officer has passed one page order and there is no reason given for accepting the income tax returns filed by the assessee. The order of the Assessing Officer is a non-speaking order. Further, she would submit that the order of the Assessing Officer was cryptic. The assessing officer had not examined how the original cost was computed. The learned Assessing Officer had simply accepted the claim of the assessee without verifying it and the order of the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Further, she would submit that the indexed cost claimed by the assessee should be from the date of the original sale from the year 2004- 2005, but not from the year 2011-2012 since actual sale has not been taken place in 2011-12, but only share alone has been transferred. Property has not been transferred during the assessment year 2011-12. Transfer of property was effected only in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment year was towards capital gains arising out of the sale of the land. Further he would submit that the land under consideration was originally owned by M/s.Ecci Koya Ltd., in the year 2005-06. Since there were no other assets in the above mentioned company, the land was revalued to the market price and sold to the respondent company during the assessment year 2011-12. During the Assessment Year 2011-12 relevant to the Financial year 2010-11, by way of shares purchase agreement, the said transaction was duly reported by the company as well as the outgoing share holders who have paid capital gains tax on the same for the consideration paid by the respondent. The said transaction was also accepted by the department during the said assessment year. 4.2. During the assessment year under consideration 2014-15, the respondent had sold property and offered capital gains tax on the sale proceeds while calculating the cost on acquisition of property for the purpose of computing the capital gains under Section 48 of the Act. The respondent/assessee had taken into consideration the revalued sum through which the said land was purchased and reported for taxation during the assessment ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... apital gains that corresponds to the revaluation reserve and if the corresponding cost is not allowed to the present owner, it would tantamount to taxation of the same income twice, firstly, in the hands of sellers of shares and once again in the hands of the successor. The intention of the statute is not to impose tax on the same income twice. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has gone through the above mentioned factual position in the impugned order and held that the said transaction has been scrutinised originally by the Assessing Officer and that the capital gains has been duly collected by the Department from the shareholders during the assessment year 2011-12 itself. Therefore, the action of the appellant in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is wrong on account of the absence of cumulative satisfaction of error and prejudice in the original assessment order since the assessing officer adopted one possible view in law factually. 5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the records. 6. On a perusal of the entire records, it is not in dispute that the assessee had revalued the land during the Financial Year 2010-11 and computat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the order of the Assessing Officer and adopt its one of the other views. Therefore, the citation above referred to reported in 295 ITR 282 is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax could not substitute a lawful view taken by the Assessing Officer. 9. Though the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue referred to decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of V.K.Bharathi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru and stated that in similar situation, the Karnataka High Court, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and sent for re-determination by the Assessing Officer stating that the issues to be reconsidered and in the other decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court reported in [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) [Malabar Industrial Co.Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax], justifying the order of the CIT, both decisions would go to show that when two views are possible, if the assessing officer taken one of the plausible views, the CIT has no authority to take other view and set aside the order of the Assessing Officer unless it found that the order of the Assessing Officer is perverse. The facts of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
