Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1058 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - provisions of section 69 of the Act are applicable - HELD THAT:- Ld. Pr. CIT has not made any enquiry from Smt. Smriti Chauhan. Except that the accounts of Ms. Chauhan, no other evidence supporting that the assessee had not advanced a sum of ₹ 59,73,000/- to Ms. Chauhan. The Ld. Pr. CIT has accepted the disclosure of ₹ 59,23,000/- by Ms. Smriti Chauhan. CIT has not observed any other defect, error or mistake in the assessment order sought to be revised. Under these undisputed facts, the action taken by the Ld. Pr. CIT could not be sustained. The law is well settled that the order of the A.O. should be erroneous and so far it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the case in hand, the Ld. Pr. CIT could not bring on record material evidence suggesting that the figure of the loans and advances as claimed by the assessee is incorrect and the figure of loans and advances as disclosed by Ms. Smriti Chauhan is correct. In the absence of the same and looking to the smallness of figure, the Pr. CIT ought not to have revised the order for the assessment year 2011-12. One of the argument of the revenue was that no prejudice is caused to the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee Revision u/s 263 - Availability of deduction u/s 54B - order being barred by limitation - HELD THAT:- We do not find any merit in the ground raised by the assessee as the impugned order is well within limitation as prescribed under the law. The order so revised was passed on 23.3.2016. The impugned order u/s 263 is dated 16.11.2017. As per the section 263(2) of the Act, no order can be passed u/s 263(1) of the Act after the expiry of 2 years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed. In the present case, the impugned order was passed on 16.11.2017, which is well within time. Hence, ground No.1 is dismissed being devoid of any merit as the law speaks of the order sought to be revised but not the issue decided. Deduction u/s 54B - The basis of treating the agricultural land by the Pr. CIT as capital asset is that no evidence was placed on record proving that the agricultural activity was being carried out by the assessee. We find that a bare reading of section 54B of the Act makes it clear that for being eligible for deduction u/s 54B of the Act, the land ought to have been used for agricultural purposes for 2 years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place. The assessee has not brought any material on record suggesting that the land was being used for agricultural purposes. Pr. CIT has merely restored the issue to the A.O. for decision afresh. Under these undisputed facts, no interference is called for. However, the assessee is at liberty to produce evidences in support of his claim for deduction. The grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed.
|