Tax Tribunal: Principal CIT lacked jurisdiction to revise Assessment Order under Section 263.

The ITAT held that the Principal CIT lacked jurisdiction to revise the Assessment Order under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's view was possible and not unsustainable in law. Citing precedents, the ITAT found the Principal CIT failed to show the Assessment Order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. As the ITAT's finding on lack of jurisdiction was unchallenged, no substantial questions of law arose, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Whether retention of 49 percent saleable area by the developer represents transfer of stock in trade u/s 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961Rs.
2. Whether eligibility of the assessee to receive 51 percent of the saleable area from the developer represents consideration towards transfer of stock in tradeRs.
3. Whether relevant facts regarding the retention of saleable area by the developer and the share entitled to the assessee were not considered by the TribunalRs.
4. Whether the development agreement between the assessee and the developers determines the consideration towards transfer of stock in tradeRs.

Summary:

The Respondent-Assessee appealed against the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12, Mumbai under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, revising the Assessment Order for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee, engaged in various businesses, had its total income determined at Rs. 3.29 crores for 2011-12, which was revised by the Principal CIT under Section 263 as erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue.

The ITAT held that the Principal CIT lacked jurisdiction to invoke revision under Section 263 as the Assessing Officer's view was a possible one and not unsustainable in law. Citing precedents like Grasim Industries Ltd. v/s. CIT and Gabriel India Ltd., the ITAT found that the Principal CIT failed to demonstrate that the Assessment Order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. As the ITAT's finding on lack of jurisdiction was unchallenged, no substantial questions of law arose, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with no costs awarded.

---