TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 852
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led her return of income for assessment year 2015-16 on 07.07.2016 admitting total income of Rs. 7,37,390/- . The assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 15.12.2017 and accepted income declared in the return of income filed for the year. 3. The case has been subsequently taken up for revision u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue, insofar as issue of computation of long term capital gain from sale of property and hence, issued show-cause notice and called upon the assessee to explain as to why assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer shall not be revised for the reasons stated i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings of the learned Principal CIT are as under:- "7. I have perused the contents of the written submission of the Authorized Representative and in my considered view, there is a total lack of application of mind on the part of the AO and this is a fit case to invoke the provisions of Sec. 263 of the Act. Therefore, in conclusion the Assessing Officer has failed to make a complete verification with respect to the aspects as discussed supra and had passed the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act, without proper diligent application of mind and enquiry, and hence in my considered opinion the assessment order so passed is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 8. Thus in view of the narrated facts of the case, it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sale transaction and also to evade proper payment of long- term capital gains and, thus, treated such excess amount shown on sale of furniture as unexplained cash credit under section 68 in the hands of the assessee.lt was sought to be argued on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal that what was sold was sale of personal effects and, therefore, no addition was warranted. The Tribunal repelled such contention raised on behalf of the assessee because the personal effects would not be included in the capital asset under section 2(14)(ii). The Tribunal, thus, held that the excess receipt had to-be considered under the residuary clause "Income from other sources' and it was rightly taxed so by the Assessing officer. 9. In the instant c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Principal CIT has rightly revised assessment order. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused material available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The provisions of section 263 of the Act empowers the Principal CIT to revise assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, if he feels that assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous, insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. From a plain reading of section 263 of the Act, it is very clear that before exercising his jurisdiction u/s.263 of the Act, the Principal CIT should satisfy himself that the Assessing Officer has passed order which is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Unless the Principal CIT prov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e interests of revenue. The question whether movable assets like air-conditioner, used TVs, fridge, dining table etc. are personal effects or capital assets is debatable issue. Since the issue is debatable, the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible view and accepted claim of the assessee that they are in the nature of personal effects and not liable for tax. The view taken by the Assessing Officer may not be correct, but the Principal CIT cannot assume jurisdiction to review the assessment order u/s.263 of the Act, unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law, because the Principal CIT cannot impose his view on the Assessing Officer . Therefore, we are of the considered view that once an issue was subject....