9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale consideration and disclosing the capital gains correctly. In the said return, the assessee had also made the claim of deduction u/s 54B on acquisition of agricultural land which is evident from the computation of income enclosed. AO in the course of re-assessment proceedings had even issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 13.11.2014 specifically making enquiries particularly into the details of property purchased by the assessee and also calling for making for capital gains on sale of property. The assessee duly replied to the same furnishing all the requisite details together with claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. After being satisfied with the various replies given by the assessee, AO proceeded to accept the claim of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 143(3)/148 on 15/03/2016 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice. 2. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. Pr. CIT has erred in law and on facts in holding as under:- That the assessee has not complied with the conditions enumerated for claiming deduction u/s 54B of the I.T. Act. That the issue of said deduction has not been examined while completing the re-assessment u/s 143(3)147 dated 15/03/2016. That the re-assessment order is hereby set aside with the direction to AO to re-examine the issue of claim of deduction u/s 54B afresh. That the assessee came forward with fabricat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That the assessee came forward with fabricated documents to claim deduction u/s 54B which is not admissible. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, order u/s 263 is bad in law for the reason that the proceedings u/s 147 initiated itself was bad in law as the order u/s 143(3)/147 dated 18/03/2016 was not maintainable and in invalid re-assessment cannot be set aside u/s 263 of the Act. 4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 2. The identical issues are involved in both these appeals and hence, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ased another agricultural land for Rs. 80 lacs. The nil capital gain reported by the assessee was accepted by the Ld. A.O. in the re-assessment and concluded u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 15/03/2016. This assessment was sought to be revised by the Ld. PCIT by invoking revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the Ld. A.O. had not examined the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act made by the Ld. AO, thereby making reassessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 6. In fact, we find that the assessee in the original return of income filed had duly disclosed the capital gains showing the lesser consideration. Therefore, the case was reopened and assessee filed his return in response to notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeded to accept the claim of the assessee with regard to computation of capital gain and claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Hence, it could be safely concluded that the Ld. A.O. had indeed made sufficient enquiries with regard to the capital gains and claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. Hence, in our considered opinion, the action of the Ld. PCIT invoking the revision jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that no enquiries made by the Ld. A.O. is factually incorrect. By placing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 43 ITR 83 (SC), we hold that when adequate enquiries were indeed carried out by the Ld. A.O., the same cannot be subjected to revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 263(1) of the Act has to be that of the revisionary authority and cannot be at the behest of some other subordinate authority. In the facts of the present appeal, it is abundantly clear that the exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act is not due to any independent application of mind by the revisionary authority, but at the behest of the Income-tax Officer. Had the ITO not sent any proposal for initiating proceedings under section 263 of the Act, it is quite probable, the revisionary authority may not have exercised his powers under section 263 of the Act. That being the factual and legal position, in our view, the exercise of powers under section 263 of the Act in the present case has to be declared invalid. In suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
