Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1507 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - non application of 50C by assessee - assessment is framed on the basis of the revised return filed - A.O. did not take into account original return of income - As per CIT non disclosing correct valuation on account of long term capital gains as applicability of section 50C ignored - HELD THAT:- There was an Agreement to Sale between Assessee-HUF and Shri Shanti Bhushan in September, 1966, whereby, the purchaser agreed to purchase the property for ₹ 1 lakh and paid earnest money of ₹ 5000 through cheque. It is, therefore, established on record that the purchaser has entered into an Agreement to Sale to purchase the property for a sum of ₹ 1 lakh in September, 1966 but due to litigation in Civil Court, the Sale Deed was executed later on 29.11.2010. Therefore case of Sanjeev Lal [2014 (7) TMI 99 - SUPREME COURT] clearly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Date of Agreement to Sale to be taken as Date of Transfer of Original Asset. On peculiar facts of the case, the sale deed dated 29.11.2010 as per provisions of Law for calculating long term capital gains shall have to be considered as executed on September 1966. Thus, the provisions of Section 50C of the I.T. Act which were not applicable in that year could not be invoked against the assessee. It is well settled Law that two conditions need to be satisfied for invoking powers under section 263 by the Commissioner which are (1) the Order of the A.O. sought to be revised is erroneous and (2) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. At the same time this provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the A.O. The order of the A.O. cannot be termed prejudicial simply because A.O. adopted one of the course permissible in Law and it has resulted in loss of Revenue or where two views are possible and A.O. has taken one view with which the Commissioner did not agree. Where two views are possible and A.O. has taken one view and the Commissioner does not agree with the view taken by the A.O, the assessment order cannot be treated as an order erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Section 50C would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In assessment year under appeal, because the date of Sale Deed shall have to be reckoned on the date of Agreement to Sale i.e., September, 1966, therefore, the view of the A.O. is sustainable in Law and if the Ld. CIT does not agree with him, such order could not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. On minor issue, assessee filed reply but no order have been passed by the Pr. CIT. It is a case where A.O. made enquiry into the matter by calling explanation of assessee and was satisfied with the claim of assessee. Therefore CIT should not have exercise jurisdiction under section 263. We, therefore, of the view that the order of CIT is not sustainable in Law - Decided in favour of assessee.
|