TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 1,95,670/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee sold agricultural land at Gut No.901, Anjaneri Shivar, Nashik. Sale consideration, as per sale deed, was declared at Rs. 80.00 lakh. As against that, the assessee claimed that he actually received a sum of Rs. 3.00 crore against the sale of agricultural land, viz., Rs. 80.00 lakh through cheque; Rs. 1.20 crore was retained by the Builder against booking of two flats by the assessee; and the remaining Rs. 1.00 crore was given to his friend Shri Dalvi. The Assessing Officer (AO) finalized the assessment by computing long term capital gain chargeable to tax at Rs. 16,78,378/- with reference to the full value of consideration on transfer of land taken at Rs. 80.00 lakh. Remainin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at Rs. 84.26 lakh, which is lower than the amount of tax computed pursuant to the original assessment u/s.143(3) at Rs. 95.57 lakh. 4. Section 263 empowers the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise an assessment order which is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is trite law that the revisionary power can be exercised only when the assessment order passed by the AO is both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. If one of the two conditions is not satisfied, the power to revise is ousted. Here is a case in which the assessment order passed pursuant to the revisionary order has resulted in total tax liability of the assessee at Rs. 84.26 lakh, which is less than the amount of tax orig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... loss of tax has been regarded as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Supreme Court has held that if due to an erroneous order of the Income Tax Officer, the Revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it would certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the Assessing Officer, cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For instance, where the Assessing Officer adopted one of several courses permissible in law or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has adopted one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it has been held that it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the R....