9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 818X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shtra and UCO Bank and the banks have given letters dated 31.12.2015 to the said effect. Thus, we are of the view that there was no material to indicate that the assessment was an erroneous assessment in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The tribunal fell in error in not testing at the very first instance, as to whether the show cause notice issued by PICT was justifiable for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. Thus, without addressing the moot point, the tribunal proceeded on a different footing. In fact, before the tribunal, the assessee raised a point about non applicability of SEBI guidelines, because the transaction was between an individual and the company. We find that there has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnai, 'B' Bench, for the Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. The Tax Case Appeal was admitted on 17.12.2018 on the following Substantial Questions of Law. (i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the action of the CIT u/s 263 holding that the order passed by the AO dated 08.11.2013 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law and having regard to sub-section 4 of section 54F, whether the assessee is entitled to claim exemption u/s 54F for the present Assessment Year namely 2011-12 having deposited the entire Capital gains in the Capital Gains scheme a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment order was erroneous, accordingly, set aside the same and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to examine whether the assessee was eligible for the claim under Section 54F of the Act. Aggrieved by such order, assessee preferred appeal before the tribunal which confirmed the order passed by the PCIT. Challenging the order of PCIT, the assessee is before this Court by way of the above appeal, admitted to decide the above mentioned substantial questions of law. 6. The law on the subject is no longer a res integra and the oft quoted decision is in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Limited Vs. CIT, reported in (2000) 109 Taxmann 66 (SC) . The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a bare reading of Section 263( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the facts pertaining to the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 54F of the Act and a part of Section 54F (1) has been extracted. After noting the above, the PCIT states as follows: On the examination of records, it is ascertained that proper verification was not done while allowing the claim of deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 . 9. In the fifth paragraph, the PCIT states that ....it is noticed that the sale process was not in accordance with the SEBI guidelines in force then and copies of agreement entered upon were also not disclosed . 10. With the above two reasons , the PCIT states that he is of the prima facie view that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee. However, since elaborate submissions were made by Mr. R. Sivaraman, learned counsel for the assessee and Mr. J. Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel, we had examined the manner in which PCIT has proceeded to take a decision in the matter. 12. What has weighed in the minds of PCIT is that the assessment order being a very brief order, he would say that the assessing officer did not apply his mind. In our considered opinion that cannot be a right test in all cases. The order may be brief, yet, if it conveys what it needs to, it would meet the ends of justice. An order can be very elaborate, yet, can be devoid of reasons and erroneous. Therefore, the length of the order or the bulk of the papers, is not the correct test. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll records, the same has been found to be correct and the assessment completed by accepting the return filed by the assessee. We find that nothing more is required to be recorded by the assessing officer, especially when the assessment file would contain all the material which has been produced by the assessee. In fact the bank details have been produced to show that the amount has been invested in Capital Gain Scheme Account in two banks viz., Bank of Maharashtra and UCO Bank and the banks have given letters dated 31.12.2015 to the said effect. Thus, we are of the view that there was no material to indicate that the assessment was an erroneous assessment in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 14. Before the tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
