TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 to Section 263 of the Act, therefore, we concur with the view taken by the Pr.CIT that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue under Section 263. But then, as a word of caution, we may herein observe, that as the assessee had admittedly sold the property for a consideration of ₹ 65 lacs, therefore, her disentitlement for claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act has to be restricted considering the said actual sale consideration and the capital gain arising therefrom. In sum and substance, though the provision of Section 50C would override the normal provisions for the purpose of quantification of the amount of long-term capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ward No.9, Municipal Corporation, Korba (Khasra No. 175/11) had entered into an agreement of sale , dated 12.11.2008 for a consideration of ₹ 65 lacs (as against the segment rate of ₹ 73.15 lac), and thereafter had executed a registered sale deed , dated 22.02.2010 in favor of the purchasers but had not filed her return of income, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act. In compliance, the assessee filed her return of income on 29.03.2014, inter alia, declaring a net long term capital loss (LTCL) of ₹ 2,58,217/- from transfer of the aforesaid property. However, the A.O took recourse to Section 50C of the Act and adopting the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property at ₹ 73.15 lac (supra), therein, v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idering the report of the Income-tax inspector, it was observed by the Pr. CIT that the residential house in question was not only incomplete but was also unfit for human habitation and was not physically occupied by anyone. It was observed by the Pr. CIT that as per field enquiry that was made through the ITO-1, Korba, the construction of the house was incomplete and there was only a boundary wall, raw structure, pillars and no full structure had yet came into existence. It was also observed by the Pr. CIT that the construction activities as regards the property in question had stopped long back and there was a wild growth on the structure and surrounding area of the constructed area. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the Pr. CIT was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s.54 of the Act i.e, without carrying out any examination and verification of the genuineness of the said claim for deduction, therefore, the Pr. CIT had rightly exercised his jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act and set-aside the assessment order. 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the orders of the lower authorities. As is discernible from the records, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason, that despite the fact that the assessee had during the year under consideration transferred her share of property vide a registered sale deed , dated 22.02.2010, but had failed to file her return of income for the said year. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the assessee in her return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 20.06.2014 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue under Section 263 of the Act. But then, as a word of caution, we may herein observe, that as the assessee had admittedly sold the property for a consideration of ₹ 65 lacs, therefore, her disentitlement for claim of deduction u/s.54 of the Act has to be restricted considering the said actual sale consideration and the capital gain arising therefrom. In sum and substance, though the provision of Section 50C of the Act would override the normal provisions for the purpose of quantification of the amount of long-term capital gain, but then, we cannot remain oblivious of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|