2025 (4) TMI 533 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT sets aside PCIT revision order u/s 263, upholds original assessment allowing LTCG exemption u/s 10(38)

ITAT Chandigarh allowed the assessee's appeal against PCIT's revision order u/s 263. The tribunal held that the original assessment u/s 147/148 was valid ... Revision u/s 263 - validity of assessment u/s 147/148 - assessee's claim of long-term capital gain (LTCG) as exempt u/s 10(38) was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue - HELD THAT:- As perused the reasons for reopening u/s 147/148 where no reasons have been given to reopen the assessment on this score of purchase of immovable properties. We further hold that merely because ROI for A.Y 2015-16 is filed for Rs. 19,23,970/-is no ground to order fresh assessment proceedings basis order u/s 263. Assessee in any case has given plausible explanation in reply and Ld. PCIT ought to have considered the same and ought to have made some bare minimum enquiry before ordering fresh assessment no such step was taken under section 263 despite express provision in this regard u/s 263 therefore the impugned order is bad in law, not proper and illegal within the meaning of Section 263 of the Act and accordingly we set aside the same on both counts on basis of which fresh assessment is ordered. We also hold that during the course of the proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act several queries were raised and that the same were properly replied by the assessee. The same were duly considered. There was a 'checking and verification' which fact is recorded. Therefore in law it cannot be said that assessment u/s 147/148 of the Act was done by Ld. AO without conducting any inquiry and verification& the case is one of no inquiry. PCIT in the impugned order has failed to establish erroneous character of assessment order and that too in such a manner that it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In the assessment proceedings where Ld. AO is consciously satisfied with the material on record, does checking and verification and accepts the return of income then such an assessment order cannot be called erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. In the instant case all this has happened. We also hold that in proceedings u/s 263 reply to the show cause notice and all other queries of Ld. PCIT is satisfactorily given to establish that order in assessment of Ld. AO is not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue so as to warrant invocation of provision u/s 263 of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core issues considered in this judgment were:Whether the assessment order dated 23/03/2022, allowing the assessee's claim of long-term capital gain (LTCG) as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.Whether the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to make requisite inquiries regarding the source of investment in immovable properties amounting to Rs. 2,50,05,000/- during the assessment year, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.The applicability of Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in determining whether the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Assessment of Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as ExemptRelevant legal framework and precedents: The assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on information suggesting that the assessee had claimed bogus LTCG through forged contract notes. The PCIT invoked Section 263, asserting that the AO failed to verify the genuineness of the transactions.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the AO had issued notices under Section 142(1) and received responses from the assessee, including purchase and sale contract notes. The AO completed the assessment after checking and verifying these documents.Key evidence and findings: The assessee provided purchase and sale contract notes for Indusind Bank shares, which the AO checked and verified. The PCIT, however, argued that the AO did not verify the genuineness of the purchase transactions.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted inquiries and verified the documents provided by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's claim was based on the evidence presented, and the assessee had no control over the AO's verification methods.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal rejected the PCIT's contention that the AO failed to conduct inquiries, noting that the AO had checked and verified the documents. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's claim was a possible view based on the evidence.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted the necessary inquiries and that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.2. Source of Investment in Immovable PropertiesRelevant legal framework and precedents: The PCIT argued that the AO failed to verify the source of investment in immovable properties, rendering the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the AO had misread the information regarding the sale of immovable properties and that the assessee had clarified the transactions as purchases, not sales. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not further investigate the matter.Key evidence and findings: The assessee provided purchase deeds and bank account statements to substantiate the source of investment. The Tribunal found that the AO had not made inquiries regarding the source of investment.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to inquire into the source of investment did not render the assessment order erroneous, as the issue was not part of the reasons for reopening the assessment under Section 147.Treatment of competing arguments: The Tribunal rejected the PCIT's argument, noting that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's explanation was reasonable given the evidence provided.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's explanation was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, as the AO had conducted inquiries and verified the evidence provided by the assessee.The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's acceptance of the assessee's claims was a possible view based on the evidence and that the assessee had no control over the AO's verification methods.The Tribunal concluded that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified, as the AO had conducted the necessary inquiries and the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.