TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nwards, and which itself clarifies that no such limitation obtained prior thereto. Reference, with profit, in this context, be made to the decision in DIT vs. Mitsubishi Corporation [ 2021 (9) TMI 875 - SUPREME COURT] explaining the relevant principle of interpretation of statues. Both the conditions, being of investment at no more than Rs. 50 lacs in any one financial year and, two, of investment in a notified asset, to be made within six months of the date of transfer (of the relevant long-term capital asset), prescribed by the section, are met, and on which aspect no doubt stands expressed by the ld. Pr. CIT. There is, in our view, no incorrect application of law by the AO, which would render his order infirm and, thus, liable for re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15/09/2014/at PB pgs.48-51), as indeed by several orders by the Appellate Tribunal. No revision under the circumstances would lie, for which reliance is placed on the decisions in CIT vs. Max India Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC); Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83; and CIT vs. Mehrotra Brothers [2004] 270 ITR 157 (MP). The Revenue s case, on the other hand, is that there has been no enquiry whatsoever by the AO during the assessment proceedings in the matter, with it being trite law that an absence of enquiry would per se result in the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, liable for revision, and for which reliance is placed on the decisions in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra); ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after the 1st day of April, 2007 in the long-term specified asset by an assessee during any financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. Second proviso to s. 54-EC(1) stands inserted by Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, w.e.f. 01/04/2015: Provided further that the investment made by an assessee in the long-term specified asset, from capital gains arising from transfer of one or more original assets, during the financial year in which the original asset or assets are transferred and in the subsequent financial year does not exceed fifty lakh rupees. 4.2 The facts of the case are undisputed and borne out by the record. The assessee sold land at Wright Town, Jabalpur on 15/11/2012 for Rs. 146.94 lacs (market value Rs. 147.09 lacs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant part of the said order reading as: 3.2 ..So, however, it is only where the circumstance/s is such as to provoke an enquiry that an absence or lack of enquiry could be said to reflect non-application of mind, vitiating the ensuing order. The amended provision (s.263) itself conveys this to be the legislative intent, using the words which should have been made , i.e., in relation to an enquiry or verification. Now, . It is only, where so, even if prima facie , that the revisionary authority can be regarded as within his province to say that the AO had not examined the same, remitting it back for necessary verification. Even here, there is scope for the assessee to explain his claim on the basis of admitted facts and law, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 438 ITR 174 (SC), explaining the relevant principle of interpretation of statues. Both the conditions, being of investment at no more than Rs. 50 lacs in any one financial year and, two, of investment in a notified asset, to be made within six months of the date of transfer (of the relevant long-term capital asset), prescribed by the section, are met, and on which aspect no doubt stands expressed by the ld. Pr. CIT. There is, in our view, no incorrect application of law by the AO, which would render his order infirm and, thus, liable for revision u/s. 263, which accordingly fails. The impugned order is not sustainable in law, and is accordingly cancelled. 4.5 We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
