2021 (3) TMI 527

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing substantial questions of law: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that assessee is eligible to make claim under section 54F when the assessee owned more then two residential houses being Flat No.2034 at High Palace Point and House No.8 in R.T. Nagar which prohibits assessee to make claim under section 54F?". "2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the order passed under section 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax was not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue when the proceedings of the Commissioner under section 263 of the Act was in accordance with parameters of said section?". 2.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short), which was allowed by the tribunal by an order dated 31.07.2015. In the aforesaid factual background, the revenue has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that assessee owned more than two residential houses viz., Flat No.2034 at High Palace Point and House No.8 in R.T.Nagar and therefore, the assessee was not entitled to claim the benefit of Section 54F of the Act. It is further submitted that Commissioner of Income Tax had rightly invoked the powers under Section 263 of the Act as the order of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Learned counsel for the revenue has invited our attention to Sect....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable as the tax effect is lower than the monetary limit prescribed in the Circular dated 08.08.2019 which is binding on the revenue. It is further pointed out that the tax effect in the instant case is only Rs. 11,53,409/- which is below the specified monetary limit. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of this court in judgment dated 18.06.2020 passed in I.T.A.no.320/2011 (SHRI.NAVEEN JOLLY VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER) and decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SOHANA WOOLLEN MILLS, 296 ITR 238 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decision were reiterated by the Supreme Court in 'CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD.,' 295 ITR 282 (SC) and recently in 'ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.', CIVIL APPEAL NO.2773/2020 DECIDED ON 17.07.2020. 9. In the instant case, the assessee sold two vacant residential sites in the Assessment Year 2005-06. The site situate at HSR Layout was sold on 01.07.2004 for a consideration of Rs. 33,50,000/- and site at Vijaya Bank Employees Housing So....