TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e that assessee a builder had filed its return for the impugned assessment year disclosing income of A79,29,320/-. The said income was revised to A4,34,23,280/- through a revised return. Assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2016 accepting the returned income. Thereafter on 17.10.2018, ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (in short ''the PCIT'') issued a notice to the assessee u/s.263 of the Act stating that order of the d. Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. According to the ld. PCIT, assessee had acquired 182723.52 sq.ft. of land for a consideration of A9,50,00,000/- during the financial year 2004-05. As per the ld. PCIT, the said land was revalued by the assessee during fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ''The core objection is on the acceptance of indexed cost of acquisition of the land by reckoning revalued cost and in the show cause notice at Para 2.10, the said issue is captured and sought to be revised on the grounds namely, no proper examination by the Assessing Officer while completing the scrutiny assessment and the " interpretation of Section 48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. On the first issue raised in para 3 of the show cause notice, it is submitted that the issue relating to the reported computation of long term capital gains was examined in the scrutiny assessment and the necessary documents including sale deeds, computation sheets were placed on record for the perusal of the Assessing officer. Moreover,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer which caused prejudice to the interest of the revenue and admittedly prompted by AG Audit, the continuation of present proceedings in such circumstances is bad in law. The scope of Sec 48 was correctly understood by the Assessing Officer while wrongly projected in the show cause notice under consideration. The term 'cost of acquisition' should be reckoned in the widest possible terms and therefore ,cannot be narrow interpretation as adopted in the show cause notice only to reckon original purchase cost. The term 'acquisition' especially denotes for understanding the whole transaction starting from share purchase agreement and ending with sale of UDS after development of the land. Therefore, the rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he modes specified in Sec 49(1)(i)to 49(1)(iv). Therefore when the capital asset has become the property of the assessee in modes other than the ones mentioned in Sec 49(1), adopting the cost of the previous owner to be that of present owner is principally incorrect. Further, the sellers of the shares had paid tax on capital 9.ains that corresponds to the revaluation reserve and if the corresponding cost is not allowed to the present owner, it would tantamount to taxation of the same income twice, firstly in the hands of the sellers of shares and once again in the hands of the successor. The intention of the statute is not to impose tax on the same income twice. In any event, the interpretation of Section 48 of the Income-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing Officer. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, shares of the assessee company had changed hands in the year 2010-2011 and new shareholders had paid prices for acquiring the shares, considering the revaluation done on the land. According to him, the sellers of the shares had paid capital gain tax on the surplus arising on sale of their shares and if the capital gains arising on the sale of the land was computed without reckoning the revalued cost, it would result in double taxation of the same amount. To a question from the Bench, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the only income returned by the assessee for the impugned assessment year was capital gains arising on the sale of the land. 6. Per contra, ld. Departmental Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g only one head of income, we cannot say that ld. Assessing Officer was oblivious of the computation of such income in a scrutiny assessment. It is specifically stated by the ld. Assessing Officer that he had examined the details filed by the assessee while completing the assessment accepting returned income. Thus though assessment order is cryptic, we cannot say that the ld. Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while accepting the income returned by the assessee. Assessee had also pointed out before ld. PCIT that the Audit Objection by itself could not be a reason to come to a concussion that order of the ld. Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. It is also not disputed that erstwhile share h....