TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 1730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earlier had paid capital gains on the consideration received by them from sale of shares, after reckoning the revised value of the land in the hands of the assessee company. In such a situation, we cannot say that acceptance of the returned income by AO was based on an erroneous view of law. By virtue of the judgment of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Max India Ltd, [ 2007 (11) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] where two views are possible and the ld. Assessing Officer had taken one of such views, to which CIT did not agree, would not be a reason for treating the order of the Assessing Officer as one erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We cannot say that the view taken by the ld. Assessing Officer in the case before us was unsustainable in law. The order of the ld. PCIT is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 3298/CHNY/2018 - - - Dated:- 20-3-2019 - SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. S. Bharath, IRS, PCIT ORDER PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessee through this appeal assails an or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0.12.2016 The core objection is on the acceptance of indexed cost of acquisition of the land by reckoning revalued cost and in the show cause notice at Para 2.10, the said issue is captured and sought to be revised on the grounds namely, no proper examination by the Assessing Officer while completing the scrutiny assessment and the interpretation of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the first issue raised in para 3 of the show cause notice, it is submitted that the issue relating to the reported computation of long term capital gains was examined in the scrutiny assessment and the necessary documents including sale deeds, computation sheets were placed on record for the perusal of the Assessing officer. Moreover, the scope of revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is narrow and using the power of revision, there cannot be substitution of the view taken by the Assessing Officer on the issue on hand. The power of revision cannot be assumed for reviewing the order of the Assessing Officer in as much as the power of revision cannot be stretched so as to include the power of review. Further, the power of revision cannot be invoked with a view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nds of the Sellers of Shares. The assessee company possessed no other asset other than the land and therefore, the value of land determines the value of sale consideration of shares sold. The corollary is also true that the sale consideration paid to acquire the shares is directly made to acquire the said land. Further, there is an attempt to restrict the cost of land to the extent of the value of land in the hands of the previous owner. As stated earlier, the 100% shareholding of the Company M/s. ECCI Koya Ltd., was acquired and therefore, there is a complete change in the ownership of the company. It is not the case of succession. Cost to the previous owner would be cost to the successor only when transactions are covered by modes specified under sec 49(1) of the Act. The transfer in the case under consideration is not governed by any of the modes specified in Sec 49(1)(i)to 49(1)(iv). Therefore when the capital asset has become the property of the assessee in modes other than the ones mentioned in Sec 49(1), adopting the cost of the previous owner to be that of present owner is principally incorrect. Further, the sellers of the shares had paid tax on capital 9.ains that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount. To a question from the Bench, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only income returned by the assessee for the impugned assessment year was capital gains arising on the sale of the land. 6. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ld. Assessing Officer order was cryptic. According to him, ld. Assessing Officer had not examined how the original cost was computed. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ld. Assessing Officer had simply accepted the claim of the assessee without verifying it and thus, according to him, the order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is not disputed that assessee had revalued the land during financial year 2010-2011 and computation of indexed cost of acquisition for working out the capital gains, started with the revalued amount. Ld. Authorised Representative has submitted before us that the only income of the assessee for the impugned assessment year was capital gains arising on the sale of the land. This was not disputed by the ld. Departmental Representative. Thus the only issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
