Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 210 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - excess claim of agricultural income - in absence of any material evidence to reconcile the discrepancy of the agricultural land holding or to show that some agricultural land have been converted into horticultural land, the learned PCIT rejected the various explanations given by the assessee and set aside the order of the Assessing Officer with a direction to redo the assessment after examining the issues as discussed - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the office note of the AO, which was inadvertently supplied to the assessee shows that the AO has obtained the details from the Tehsildar, Chintalapudi Mandal of West Godavari Distt of Andhra Pradesh wherein the Tehsildar has certified that the assessee’s landholding is 11.80 acres and during the financial year 2015-16, 13 acres of land was converted into horticultural land and that is why it is not appearing in the revenue record. Thus, during the financial year 2014-15, the assessee was having 24.80 acres of land. Therefore, it is a clear case of due application of mind by the Assessing Officer and therefore, the order cannot be stated to be erroneous although it may be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue since according to the learned PCIT the agricultural income from 14.08 acres of land could not have exceeded Rs.10.00 lakhs. In the instant case, the office note of AO clearly shows that he has accepted the agricultural income declared by the assessee after due verification and due application of mind and therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous. Even if the order is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, however, the other condition that the order is erroneous is absent. Therefore, the learned PCIT, in our opinion, is not justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 - it has been held in various decisions that merely because the PCIT does not agree with the view taken by the AO he cannot assume jurisdiction u/s 263 or thrust upon his view as against the view taken by the AO unless the view taken by the AO is perverse one or not a possible view. The view taken by the Assessing Officer in the instant case is a possible view. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned PCIT and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
|