TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e returns filed. 2.2 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-1, considering that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, issued notice dated 17.10.2018 to the assessee to show cause as to why the giving effect order passed by the Assessing Officer on 30.12.2016 should not be set aside invoking provisions of Section 263 of the Act. 2.3 The assessee filed reply dated 07.11.2018. Taking into account the reply of the assessee and also considering the scope of Section 263 of the Act, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Chennai, passed an order under Section 263 of the Act on 13.11.2018, holding that there was a lack of application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order and in view of the fact that the assessment order passed was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, set aside the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 and directed the assessing officer to examine the aspects stated in Section 263 of the order in respect of indexing cost and pass fresh order, after affording opportunity to the assessee. 2.4 Aggrieved by the said order of the Principal Commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cost of acquisition of the land, it should be with reference to the year of acquiring the land i.e., 2004-05 and not 2010-11, however, the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) misapplied the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and also the decisions of High Courts and set aside the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax passed under Section 263 of the Act and therefore, the appellant/Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial question of law: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Income tax under Section 263?" 3.3 In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax ; (2) [2019] 102 taxmann.com 55 (Karnataka) V.K.Bharathi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru. 4.1. The learned counsel for the respondent/assessee would submit that the order of the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax is erroneous. The Assessing Officer had taken one of the plausible ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s owner made during the assessment year 2005-2006, for the purpose of computing the indexed cost of acquisition. He would further submit that scope of revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is narrow and using the power of revision, there cannot be substitution of view taken by the Assessing Officer on the issue on hand. The power of revision cannot be assumed for reviewing the order of the Assessing Officer in as much as the power of revision cannot be stretched so as to include power of review. 4.3. Further the learned counsel would submit that the purchase cost in the hands of the share holders is fully disclosed and it is reflected in the balance sheet of the respondent. The sellers of shares having paid appropriate capital gains tax fortifying the adoption of cost at the increased value, which is not notional but actual. Further it is the attempt to restrict the cost of land to the extent of the value of land in the hands of the previous owner. The 100% share holding of the company viz., M/s.Ecci Koya Ltd., was acquired and therefore, there is a complete change in the ownership of the company. It is not the case of succession. Cost to the previous owner woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he present share holders of the assessee company paid capital gains tax considering the market value of the aforesaid landed property. The assessing officer has accepted the claim of the assessee that the calculation from the revised value is correct. In such view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue that there is no speaking order and that order of the assessing officer was cryptic is not acceptable one. Though the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has got power under Section 263 of the Act, to revise the order, if he considers that the Assessing Officer has not properly examined the materials or not properly calculated the income of the assessee, when the plausible two views are possible and the assessing officer adopted one of the views, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax should not interfere with the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 8. In this case, even though there is no transfer of property by excluding the sale deed, but at the same time, the property has been revalued in accordance with law and capital gains tax also paid on the revised value. It is not the case of the department that for the purpose of evading the....