TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year. Perusal of the said documents reveal that the department has accepted the plea of the assessee in the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2018-19. The Ld. PCIT has not pointed out any material change in the facts of the present case. Claim of deduction u/s 54B 54F - As per the decision of Mahendra Rajnikant Zaveri [ 2018 (1) TMI 182 - ITAT JAIPUR] in the light of the CBDT Circular No 791 dated 02. 06. 2000 and taking into consideration the impossibility of the assessee being able to invest the amount, has held that the period of 6 months for the purposes of investment in specified assets must be reckoned from the date of receipt of consideration. So, we are of the considered view that since the AO had taken a possible view after hearing the assessee in the light of the cases relied upon by the assessee, the Ld. PCIT has wrongly exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order. As per the settled law u/s 263 of the Act, the CIT has power to examine an assessment order to ascertain as to whether it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Section 263 of the Act does not confer jurisdiction to rectify each and ever ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 54, 96, 205/-in respect of capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land valued at 2, 00, 22, 267 /- without conducting any enquiry and that as per Form 26AS, the assessee received payment on account of contract whereas no income had been reflected on this account. Further, the AO has accepted the contentions of the assessee without making any enquiry. Therefore, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In response thereof, the Ld. assessee filed detailed reply to justify the claim of deduction u/s 54B, 54 F and further to justify the fair market value adopted. As regards contract receipts as per Form AS 26, the assessee contended that the same have been disclosed and duly reflected in the profit and loss account of the proprietary Firm of the assessee M/s Mahak Enterprises. However, the Ld. PCIT rejecting the contentions of the assessee cancelled the assessment order holding the same erroneous and prejudicial to interest of the revenue and directed the AO to pass assessment order afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. Against the impugned order passed by the Ld. PCIT, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., agricultural land into stock in trade on 31.03. 2007. The assessee developed the said land and constructed flats and other units thereon. During the financial year 2012-13 the assessee sold the said flats and invested the sale proceeds in agricultural land for claiming deduction u/s 54B and purchase and constructed residential house to claim deduction/s 54F of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further contended that during the assessment proceedings the AO made specific query with regard to the immovable assets held by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel invited out attention to question No 11 and 12 raised by the AO vide letter dated 27. 04. 2015 i. e., during assessment proceedings. In response to the said letter, the AR of the assessee furnished the details called for and discussed the case. The AO after examining and verifying the same and hearing the AR accepted the claim of the assessee. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the computation statement for AY 2011-12 and 2012- 13 along with assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) are placed at pages 67 to 75 and 76 to 84 respectively in the paper book. The facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the cases pertaining to the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel, the assessee has furnished the details and documents in response to the query raised vide notice dated 27. 04. 2015. Hence, in our considered view, this is not a case where the AO has passed the assessment order without any enquiry, but the AO has taken one of the possible views taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made in the light of the cases relied upon by the assessee. 8. The second issue raised against the impugned order is that the department has accepted the return of the assessee in the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012 -13 in which the similar issues were involved. The assessee has demonstrated the same by furnishing copies of computations and assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Further, the assessee has also placed on record the copy of notice issued by the AO u/s 142 of the Act issued during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2018-19, copy of reply to the said notice and the copy of assessment order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with sections 143(3A) 143(3B) of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19 to demonstrate the consistent stand of the revenue in the previous years and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axed in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case Mahendra Rajnikant Zaveri (supra), in the light of the CBDT Circular No 791 dated 02. 06. 2000 and taking into consideration the impossibility of the assessee being able to invest the amount, has held that the period of 6 months for the purposes of investment in specified assets must be reckoned from the date of receipt of consideration. So, we are of the considered view that since the AO had taken a possible view after hearing the assessee in the light of the cases relied upon by the assessee, the Ld. PCIT has wrongly exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order. 11. Further as per the settled law u/s 263 of the Act, the CIT has power to examine an assessment order to ascertain as to whether it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Section 263 of the Act does not confer jurisdiction to rectify each and every mistake in the assessment order. Therefore, the assessment order can be revised only where the order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and not for rectification of mistakes in the order. 12. So f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
