Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (7) TMI 661

..... limitation as in the case in hand, there was no assessment u/s 143(3). It was merely a processing where the assessing officer had processed the return of the income and did not scrutinise the claim of the assessee. We are also in agreement of the finding of the Ld. CIT(DR) that section 147 and section 153A operate in two different and distinct fields. Therefore, the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. [2007 (7) TMI 304 - SUPREME COURT] would not help the assessee. Hence, we find no merit in the ground raised and the same is dismissed. Undisclosed sale of property - not working out LTCG in accordance with the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority as per section 50C - Lack of enquiry on the admissibility of claim for deduction u/s 54F - no incriminating material found - HELD THAT:- CIT had invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act on the basis that the assessee failed to disclose the sale consideration and also did not work out long term capital gain in accordance with the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority as per section 50C. The contention of the assessee is that provisions of section 50C of the Act are .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... the Act was passed on 14.3.2016, thereby assessing a total income of ₹ 16,88,730/-. The Ld. Principal CIT observed that on verification of the record, it was revealed that assessee had sold plot No.18A, Gulmohar Colony, Chunna Bhatti during the financial year 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11 for a sum of ₹ 26,01,000/-. The fair market value of property on date of transfer being 29,71,000/- and long term capital gain was worked out on it at ₹ 22,35,813/-. It is observed that the assessee had claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Act of ₹ 20,82,201/- as per the computation of income. The assessee had not furnished the sale deed of plot for ascertaining the value as per section 50C of the Act. It was further revealed that the assessee had neither purchased any residential house as per details of immovable assets furnished during the assessment within prescribed limit nor the long term capital gain was deposited in capital gain account scheme. Therefore, the assessee was not eligible for claiming exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Accordingly, long term capital gain was required to be assessed at ₹ 20,82,201/- for the assessment year 2010-11, which wa .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... submitted that the judgement relied by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee the facts were that case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and it was not the case where the assessment was framed u/s 153A of the Act. Ld. D.R. submitted that both the provisions operate in different fields. Ld. D.R. relied on the finding of the Ld. Pr. CIT. 5. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld. Pr. CIT has decided this issue in para 7.4 of his order by observing as under: 6. We do not find any merit into this contention of the assessee that impugned order is hit by limitation as in the case in hand, there was no assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. It was merely a processing where the assessing officer had processed the return of the income and did not scrutinise the claim of the assessee. We are also in agreement of the finding of the Ld. CIT(DR) that section 147 of the Act and section 153A of the Act operate in two different and distinct fields. Therefore, the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Alagendran Finance Ltd. (supra) would not help the assessee. Hence, we fi .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... the Act and if he considers that any order passed therein by the A.O. is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, there is no prohibition under the law that the Ld. Principal CIT cannot revise the order passed u/s 153A of the Act. However, exercising of the jurisdiction is subject to satisfaction of twin conditions i.e. the order so passed is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The law is well settled merely an erroneous order would not be sufficient to make such order subject matter of revision u/s 263 of the Act unless such order is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In our considered view, consideration by the Principal CIT for ascertaining that any order passed is erroneous so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is not mechanical. There has to be some material or the basis of such consideration. In our view, revisionary power is not a tool to correct any error or mistake. But if any error in exercising of jurisdiction or appreciating of any fact or law is of such nature that cause prejudice to the interest of the revenue, the spirit of law to be followed in true sense. The .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... be some grievous error in the Order passed by the Income-tax Officer, which might set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessments, which on a broad reckoning, the Commissioner might think to be prejudicial to the interests of Revenue Administration. In our view this interpretation is too narrow to merit acceptance. The scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue. If due to an erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||