TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 568
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es u/s 143 (2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. In response thereof, the authorized representative of the assessee appeared before the AO and furnished the details and documents called for. The AO after examining the documents and accepting the returned income passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. 3. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT issued notice u/s 263 directing the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year should not be cancelled by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act on the grounds that the AO has accepted the claim of the assessee u/s 54B of the Act, amounting to Rs. 1, 29, 36, 124 /- and u/s 54F amounting to Rs. 54, 96, 205/-in respect of capital gain arising from the sale of agricultural land valued at 2, 00, 22, 267 /- without conducting any enquiry and that as per Form 26AS, the assessee received payment on account of contract whereas no income had been reflected on this account. Further, the AO has accepted the contentions of the assessee without making any enquiry. Therefore, the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In response thereof, the Ld. assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case, the learned Pr CIT has erred to observe that the FMV of the lands transferred remained unexamined. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is beyond the scope of section 263 of the Act. 8. That the impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence 9. That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the Appeal. 5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee engaged in the business as builder and developer, had converted the capital asset i. e., agricultural land into stock in trade on 31.03. 2007. The assessee developed the said land and constructed flats and other units thereon. During the financial year 2012-13 the assessee sold the said flats and invested the sale proceeds in agricultural land for claiming deduction u/s 54B and purchase and constructed residential house to claim deduction/s 54F of the Act. The Ld. Counsel further contended that during the assessment proceedings the AO made specific query with regard to the immovable assets held by the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t order afresh. The Ld. DR pointed out that the AO has not made specific query with regard to the deduction u/s 54 B and 54F of the Act. 7. We have heard the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material on record including the cases relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The first point raised by the Ld. counsel is that the since the AO has passed the assessment order u/s 143 (3) of the Act after examining the relevant documents and seeking explanations from the assessee, the Ld. PCIT has wrongly held that the AO has passed the assessment order without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel, the assessee has furnished the details and documents in response to the query raised vide notice dated 27. 04. 2015. Hence, in our considered view, this is not a case where the AO has passed the assessment order without any enquiry, but the AO has taken one of the possible views taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made in the light of the cases relied upon by the assessee. 8. The second issue raised against the impugned order is that the department has accepted the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Tribunal holding that the action of the Ld. CIT is against the principle of consistency. In the present case also the Ld. PCIT has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the stand of the assessee in preceding assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 and the subsequent year 2018-19. 10. So far as the issue regarding claim of deduction u/s 54B & 54F of the Act is concerned, as per the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Sh. Ramdas Haribhau Kakade (supra), assessee's entitlement for claiming deduction u/s 54B(1) and 54 (B)(2) of the Act would be seen in the year in which the deemed transfer is to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case Mahendra Rajnikant Zaveri (supra), in the light of the CBDT Circular No 791 dated 02. 06. 2000 and taking into consideration the impossibility of the assessee being able to invest the amount, has held that the period of 6 months for the purposes of investment in specified assets must be reckoned from the date of receipt of consideration. So, we are of the considered view that since the AO had taken a possible view after hearing the assessee in the ....