TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether revision under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified where the Assessing Officer had examined the assessee's claim for deduction under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and accepted it despite the conveyance deed being unregistered.
Analysis: The record showed that the Assessing Officer had issued queries on the capital-gains computation, specifically asked about the purchase of the new property through an unregistered document, and received a reply that the deed was still unregistered. On these facts, the assessment could not be treated as one passed without enquiry or without application of mind. The Tribunal also relied on its earlier view that registration of the conveyance deed was not indispensable for the purpose of section 54F, and that the legal position on transfer and part performance did not compel the conclusion adopted by the revisional authority. Since the Assessing Officer had taken one of the possible views after enquiry, the conditions for invoking section 263 were not satisfied.
Conclusion: The revision order was not sustainable and was quashed; the assessee succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked where the Assessing Officer has made enquiries and adopted a plausible view on the claim, even if the Commissioner holds a different view on the same issue.
TaxTMI 
