PCIT's Section 263 revision quashed for Long Term Capital Gain computation without considering assessee's replies

ITAT Ahmedabad quashed PCIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding Long Term Capital Gain computation. PCIT alleged assessee failed to produce evidence for land levelling, fencing, consultation charges, and land development expenses of Rs. 49,08,263/-. ITAT held PCIT failed to consider assessee's replies and that expenditure wasn't disallowed in original assessment year 2007. Court noted AO cannot seek details beyond three years and where two views are possible, adopting one view doesn't justify s.263 revision. Since assessee had carry forward losses and no revenue loss occurred, revision was unwarranted. Appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Revision Order under Section 263.
2. Alleged Lack of Proper Verification by the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Examination of Expenses Claimed by the Assessee.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Revision Order under Section 263:
The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the Revision order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Ahmedabad-1, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The PCIT issued a show cause notice on 10-03-2023 questioning why the assessment order dated 16-12-2020 should not be revised due to the AO's alleged failure to conduct proper enquiries.

2. Alleged Lack of Proper Verification by the Assessing Officer (AO):
The PCIT argued that the AO did not adequately verify the expenses claimed by the Assessee in the computation of capital gain, specifically:
- Land levelling and fencing work of Rs. 3,20,341/-
- Consultation charges of Rs. 6,32,247/-
- Land development charges of Rs. 39,55,675/-

The PCIT held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, as per explanation 2 of Section 263, and directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order.

3. Examination of Expenses Claimed by the Assessee:
The Assessee contended that during the assessment proceedings, detailed replies and evidence were submitted in response to notices issued under Section 143(2). The AO had accepted these submissions and completed the assessment without making any additions. The Assessee argued that the expenses were part of the land cost capitalized in previous years, and the AO's acceptance of these expenses in earlier assessments should not be questioned.

Tribunal's Findings:
The Tribunal noted that the PCIT primarily relied on the Assessee's reply dated 03.10.2020 and failed to consider other replies dated 10.01.2020, 06.08.2020, and 24.11.2020. The Tribunal held that the AO's decision was a plausible view and that the PCIT's revision was not justified. The Tribunal emphasized that as per clause (b) of Section 142(1) and Rule 6F of the Income Tax Rules, the AO could not call for details beyond three years prior to the previous year. The Tribunal also cited several judicial precedents supporting the view that a different opinion by the PCIT does not justify invoking Section 263 if the AO's view is plausible.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the Revision order passed by the PCIT, holding that the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the open court on 27-10-2023.

---