Tribunal overturns Pr. CIT's decision under Section 263, upholding AO's assessment.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the Pr. CIT's order passed under Section 263. The Tribunal found the AO's view on the issues permissible, citing the principle that an order cannot be deemed erroneous if the AO's view is legally sustainable. The Tribunal referred to *Malabar Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT* and concluded that the Pr. CIT's revision was unwarranted. The original assessment order by the AO was restored, and the judgment was pronounced on 30th September 2021, considering the delay due to COVID-19.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay
2. Revision of Assessment Order by Pr. CIT under Section 263
3. Computation of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG)
4. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 54F
5. Legal Expenses Deduction

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay
The appeal filed by the assessee suffered from a 36-day delay. The assessee attributed the delay to the time taken for legal advice on whether to appeal. The Tribunal referred to the case laws of *Collector Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & Ors, 1987 AIR 1353 (SC)* and *University of Delhi Vs. Union of India*, which support condonation of delay for substantial justice. The Tribunal found the delay neither intentional nor deliberate and condoned it.

2. Revision of Assessment Order by Pr. CIT under Section 263
The Pr. CIT exercised powers under Section 263 to revise the assessment order passed by the AO, deeming it erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The Pr. CIT noted discrepancies in the market value of the property and the amount deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme (CGAS). The Pr. CIT directed the AO to bring the differential capital gain and the uninvested amount to tax under LTCG.

3. Computation of Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG)
The AO initially accepted the assessee's computation of LTCG based on the market value of Rs. 9,44,98,000. However, the Pr. CIT found that the correct market value was Rs. 9,75,22,000, resulting in a shortfall of Rs. 30,24,000 in the sale consideration. The Pr. CIT held that the AO failed to consider this discrepancy, leading to an underreported LTCG by Rs. 7,56,000.

4. Eligibility for Deduction under Section 54F
The Pr. CIT observed that the assessee did not deposit the entire sale consideration in the CGAS within the stipulated time, making a portion of the amount ineligible for deduction under Section 54F. The assessee argued that the total investment made was more than the actual amount received from the sale, thus fully entitled to the exemption under Section 54F. The Tribunal found that the AO had already examined these issues and accepted the claims, and the Pr. CIT's revision was not warranted.

5. Legal Expenses Deduction
The Pr. CIT disallowed Rs. 5,00,000 of the claimed legal expenses due to lack of supporting evidence. The assessee contended that the AO had already examined and accepted the legal expenses during the assessment. The Tribunal supported the assessee's position, noting that the AO had considered the evidence provided.

Tribunal's Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the AO had taken a permissible view on the issues, and the Pr. CIT's revision under Section 263 was not justified. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Malabar Industries Ltd. Vs. CIT, 2000 (243) ITR 83*, which states that an order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue if the AO's view is sustainable in law. The Tribunal set aside the Pr. CIT's order and restored the AO's original assessment order.

Final Decision:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order of the Pr. CIT passed under Section 263 was set aside. The Tribunal acknowledged the delay due to COVID-19 and pronounced the judgment on 30th September 2021.

---