Tribunal affirms tax assessment, rejects jurisdiction challenge despite pandemic delays. Deduction claim verification found lacking.

The Tribunal upheld the Principal Commissioner's decision to set aside the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant's challenge to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner under section 263 was rejected, despite a condonation of the time-barred appeal due to pandemic-related delays. The Tribunal found that the assessing officer failed to adequately verify the claim of deduction under section 54B, leading to discrepancies and ultimately dismissing the appeal on 19-07-2023.

---

---

Issues involved:
The jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the correctness of the assessment order framed under section 143(3) of the Act.

Jurisdiction of Principal Commissioner under section 263:
The appeal was time-barred by 49 days due to the corona pandemic period, but the delay was condoned after considering the circumstances. The appellant challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the Principal Commissioner under section 263, arguing that the order was bad in law.

Correctness of assessment order under section 143(3):
The Principal Commissioner set aside the assessment order, citing errors by the assessing officer in not adequately verifying the claim of deduction under section 54B of the Act. The appellant contended that necessary inquiries were made during assessment proceedings, but the Principal Commissioner found the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests.

Details of the Judgment:
The assessment was completed with additions under sections 50C and disallowance under section 54B. The Principal Commissioner noted discrepancies in the claim of deduction under section 54B related to the sale of urban agricultural land. The assessing officer did not delve into the eligibility of the deduction, leading to the Principal Commissioner's decision that the assessment order was flawed.

The appellant argued that sufficient inquiries were made during assessment proceedings, pointing to the notices issued and information provided. However, the Departmental Representative highlighted the delayed submission of details by the appellant, limiting the assessing officer's ability to conduct thorough inquiries.

After considering the arguments, the Tribunal found that the assessing officer did not adequately investigate the use of the land for agricultural purposes before its sale, a key requirement for claiming deduction under section 54B. The Tribunal concurred with the Principal Commissioner's assessment that the appellant failed to substantiate the claim with proper evidence, such as the actual use of the land for agricultural purposes.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Principal Commissioner's decision. The order was pronounced on 19-07-2023.

---