TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irection to the AO to make a fresh assessment order. Even otherwise also, there is nothing before us to deviate from the view taken by the ld.Pr.CIT on this issue coupled with the fact that there is no assistance rendered by the assessee to adjudicate the issue involved in the ground raised before us without supporting evidences. As a consequence, the grounds raised by the assessee stand rejected - Decided against assessee. - ITA No.145/RJT/2016 - - - Dated:- 29-4-2022 - Smt.Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Samir Tekriwal, CIT-DR ORDER PER T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 29.2.2016 passed by the Pr.Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajkot-1 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short) relating to the Astt.Year 2011-12. 2. When the case was listed for hearing on 25.4.2022, there was a letter for seeking adjournment by stating that appellant s father was died due to Covid-19 pandemic. Further, appellant s mother was also not feeling well due to Covid-19 complications, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act has not looked into this issue, which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, a show cause notice under section 263 of the Act was issued on 12.1.2016 to the assessee. The assessee after taking two adjournments filed his written submission. In para-3 of the submission, the assessee claimed that the actual transfer of the capital asset was on 15.8.2010 and due to typographical error it was mentioned as 15.4.2010. Thus, the assessee contended that the land was held for more than two years. After considering the above submission, the ld.Pr.CIT set aside assessment order dated 20.12.2013 by a speaking order as follows: 6. This contention of the assessee is not acceptable as in the statement of total income forming part of the return of income, the assessee has given a working of the capital gain wherein the date of transfer of capital asset is mentioned as 15.04.2010. As regards the contention that during the course of the assessment proceedings working of capital gain was given wherein the date of transfer was specifically mentioned as 15.08.2010, no such submission is found in the assessment record. In the record there is no submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nto non-agricultural land, the date of transfer of capital asset should be 05.03.2011. In that case the holding period of the capital asset transferred, would have been of more than 2 years. 10. However, even if the date of transfer of the capital asset is considered as 16.12.2010, the deduction u/s. 54B cannot be allowed due to the following reasons: (a) In the submission made during the course of the proceedings, the assessee has enclosed copies of documents in respect of land purchased for which deduction u/s. 54B of the Act has been claimed. The details of the investment is as follows: Sr. No. Particulars of land Purchase price/investment amount Date of purchase deed 1 Survey No. 60/10 of Village Kanagshiali 12,64,600 (25,29,200/2) 16.09.2010 2 Survey No. 60/8 61/8 of Village Kanagshiali 11,53,400 (23,06,800/2) 16.09.2010 3 Survey No. 61/10 of Village Kanagshiali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Explanation is reproduced hereunder: Explanation 2 For the purpose of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) The order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b)The order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; The proceedings u/s. 263 of the Act in this case is covered by the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2015. In my opinion the assessment order in this case was passed without making proper inquiries or verification with regard to allowing the claim of deduction u/s. 54B of the Act. 14. In view of the above discussed facts, the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 20.12.2013 for the A.Y. 2011-12 is held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. By virtue of powers vested in me u/s. 263 of the I T Act, I cancel the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 20.12.2013 and direct the Assessing Officer make a fresh assessment as per law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
