Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 238 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - profit on sale of agricultural land - allegation of Non independent application of mind and solely on the basis of Revenue Audit Objection - HELD THAT:- Information/objection gathered by the Pr. CIT from the audit party vide its memo/letter squarely falls within the scope and ken of the term “records” as used in Section 263 of the Act. CIT in order to fortify his aforesaid conviction had categorically observed that the claim of the assessee that the land under consideration was not a capital asset was not supported by any documentary evidence, viz. (i) that no certificate from the land records authority certifying that the agricultural land sold by the assessee was situated beyond the specified distance from the municipal limits as mentioned in Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act was available on record ; (ii) that there were no documents available on record which would corroborate that the lands in question were used for agricultural purposes for two years immediately preceding the date of transfer as was a pre-condition per clause (ii) of Section 10(37) of the Act; and (iii) the lands were acquired not for any agriculture purposes as the same were acquired by NRDA. We are unable to concur with the Ld. AR that the Pr. CIT had merely acted upon the suggestion of the audit party and had failed to independently apply his mind while assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. As observed by the Pr. CIT, and, rightly so, as the A.O had failed to verify the maintainability of the assessee’s claim that the transaction of sale of land at Village: Baroda to NRDA was exempt from tax and in absence of any supporting material had summarily accepted his claim, therefore, it was clearly a case where the order on the said aspect had been passed without making any enquiry or verification which should have been made. No reason to dislodge the well-reasoned order of the Pr. CIT, who by specifically referring to “Explanation 2” to Section 263 of the Act had held the order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s. 263 of the Act, uphold the same. Decided against assessee.
|