TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1771X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rroneous. We hold that the Ld.Pr.CIT has invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 without any tangible material and on difference of opinion. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 is unsustainable, accordingly, we cancel the order passed by the Ld.Pr.CIT u/s 263 and allow the appeal of the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No.400/Viz/2017 (Assessment Year:2007-08) - - - Dated:- 17-8-2018 - Shri V. Durga Rao And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, JJ. Appellant by: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR Respondent by: Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal, DR ORDER D.S. Sunder Singh, This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 263 by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT)-1, Visakhapatnam vide F.No.Pr.CIT-1/VSP/263/2016-17 dated 30.03.2017 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as Act ) by an order dated 27.03.2015. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee has sold property bearing No.15-10-19/2B located in TS No.143/26, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam for a consideration of ₹ 7,25,000/- to Smt.Raavi Neelima and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtion Sale consideration of superstructure : Rs.4,89,509/- Less : Cost of construction of superstructure [876.06 sft (RCC) X ₹ 370 + 300 sft(ACC) XRs.230] Rs.3,93,120/- [Since the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences for the cost of construction of building, the structure rates prescribed by the Manual of Stamp Duty Registration in A.P. vide C IG Proceedings No.MV1/10370/03, dated 14.08.2004 are adopted.] Short term capital gains Rs.96,389/- Against the long term capital gains of ₹ 5,20,214/- and the short term capital gains of ₹ 96,389/-, the assessee has admitted short term capital gains of ₹ 22,350/-. Therefore, the Ld.Pr.CIT was under the impression that the assessment made by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, hence, issued the show cause notice as to why the assessment should not be revised u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted for adoption of ₹ 60/- per sq.yard. With regard to the cost of construction, the Ld.Pr.CIT has directed the AO to adopt the super structure rate at ₹ 370/- for 876.06 sft (RCC) and ₹ 230/- per sq.ft for 300 sft (ACC), relying on the Stamp duty and Registration structure rates, which is also incorrect. The Ld.AR argued that the cost of construction during the above period was more than ₹ 700/- to ₹ 800/- per sq.ft. and submitted that the rates applied by the Ld.Pr.CIT to compute capital gains is also is incorrect and against the facts. The Ld.Pr.CIT did not bring any tangible material to hold that the assessment order passed by the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue on facts and on law. It was only on guess work and on presumptions the Ld.Pr.CIT held that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and the same required to be quashed. 4. On the other hand, the Ld.DR strongly supported the order of the Ld.Pr.CIT. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record, The assessee is Head Constable working in II Town Police Station, Visakhapatnam. He had sold the prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd from the assessment order that the assessee had filed the details and made the submissions in respect of computation of capital gains and the assessment was completed after examination of the details furnished by the assessee. The issue with regard to the computation of capital gains, cost of acquisition of the property, cost of construction, sale consideration and applicability of 50C were duly verified by the AO before completion of the assessment. Since the issue has already been verified by the AO, the Ld.Pr.CIT is not permitted to revisit the same issue and substitute his opinion in the name of revision. Review of the same issue which was already considered and examined by the AO would amount to difference of opinion not a case for revision u/s 263. Further, having examined the issue by the AO and taken a conscious decision, accepting the cost of construction, after due verification, not applying the rates as observed by the Ld.Pr.CIT would amount to inadequate enquiry, but not lack of enquiry and again on inadequate enquiry, the Ld.Pr.CIT is not allowed to invoke the jurisdiction u/s 263. Hon ble High court of Karnataka in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bangalore. v.KurlonLtd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
