TMI Blog1982 (8) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Income-tax Act, 1961 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer was not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue ? " The facts briefly stated are that for the assessment year 1972-73, the ITO computed the capital gains earned by the assessee on sales of three houses. Two houses were sold for Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 30,000. The third house was sold for Rs. 48,000. The ITO estimated the fair market value of the first two houses at Rs. 1,15,000 as against Rs. 50,000 shown in the sale deeds. The fair market value of the third house was estimated at Rs. 1,86,000. The ITO did not obtain the approval of the IAC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in any case (a) where the capital asset is transferred to the Government, or (b) where the full value of the consideration for the transfer of the capital asset is determined or approved by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank of India and the adequacy of the full value of the consideration so determined or approved is not questioned by the assessee." A reading of s. 52(2) will show that if the ITO is of the opinion that the fair market value of a capital asset transferred by an assessee exceeds the full value of the consideration declared by the assessee by an amount of not less than fifteen per cent. of the value so declared, the full value of the consideration of such capital asset, with the previous approval of the IAC, will b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessment order but would remand the case to the ITO for taking approval of the IAC, i.e., for complying with the requirement of s. 52(2). In other words, the appellate authority would do the same thing which the Commissioner can do in revision. Thus, the Revenue's interest is safeguarded in all eventualities and it cannot be said that the omission to follow the procedure of obtaining the approval of the IAC as required by s. 52(2) would result in prejudice to the Revenue. Examining the position from all these angles we agree with the Tribunal that the Commissioner had no power of revision, for, the omission to take the approval of the IAC did not make the assessment order passed by the ITO pre-judicial to the interest of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
