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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revision order under section 263 was sustainable when the assessee had not claimed any capital gains exemption on the compulsory acquisition compensation and the assessment order had not allowed any such exemption.
Analysis: The revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 can be invoked only where the assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The assessment record showed that the assessee had accounted for the surplus from acquisition of land by NHAI as revenue from operations and had not offered the amount as capital gains in the return of income, nor claimed exemption under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 in the return. Since no such exemption had been allowed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the foundational premise for revision was factually incorrect.
Conclusion: The revision under section 263 could not be sustained and was rightly set aside in favour of the assessee.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 263 cannot be invoked on an incorrect factual assumption that a claim was made and allowed when no such claim or allowance exists in the assessment order.