TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 110
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vil Appeal No. 9488 & 9489/2019 dated 17 December, 2019, hold that such a delay; supported by cogent reasons, deserves to be condoned so as to make way for the cause of substantial justice. We accordingly hold that assessee's impugned delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to the circumstances beyond its control. The same stands condoned. Case is now taken up for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has raised 13 grounds of appeal in this appeal, the sum and substance of which is against the action of the Pr. CIT revising the order passed by the AO. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee had originally filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 on 28.03.2011 admitting income under head 'House property' and 'other sources' amounting to Rs. 8,27,280/- and after claiming deduction u/s 54F, 'Capital gain' as 'Nil'. Later, it came to the notice of the AO that during the F.Y. 2008-09, assessee along with 3 others had sold immovable property and the Market value of the property for stamp duty was more than the sale consideration stated in the conveyance deed. Hence, a notice u/s.148 was issued as there was an escapemen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the assessment order and directed the AO to bring i) the differential capital gain of Rs. 7,56,000/- and ii) the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 38,39,500/- not deposited in CGAS on or before the specified date, to tax under the head LTGC in addition to the income already assessed in the assessment order dated 29/05/2014 and modify the assessment order accordingly. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Pr. CIT, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 6. Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Pr. CIT invoking the provisions of section 263 set aside the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) rws 147 of the Act and he grossly erred in revising the order without appreciating that there is no error and, therefore, is ultra vires to the scope of section 263 and required to be cancelled under the facts and circumstances of the case of the assessee. He contended that he raised the same issues which were clearly examined by the AO and reasons were also recorded on the same issues, to which, the AO examined all the issues, on the basis of which, reopening was done and no addition was called and the AO accepted the returned income. . He, therefore, contended that once the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsideration received of Rs. 6,89,58,000/- as shown in the sale deed. He submitted that the total investment made by the assessee is more than the actual amount received on sale of capital assets. He, therefore, contended that the assessee is fully entitled to make claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. In support of his submissions, he relied on various judgments, which are placed in the paper book. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record as well as gone through the orders of revenue authorities. The AO passed the assessment order u/s 143(3)/147 and, thereafter, the Pr. CIT exercising his jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act passed order on 17/03/2017 on the very same issues, which were examined and decided by the AO by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the statement of LTCG, the assessee had not adopted the market value/SRO value as sale consideration as per section 50C of the Act. In AY 2012-13, the assessee computed LTCG by adopting market value of Rs. 9,44,98,000/- and the assessee being 1/4th share beneficiary of Rs. 2,09,62,515/-, claimed deduction u/s 54F of Rs. 1,83,54,514/- against the investment in residential house and the amount of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsuccessful assessee is the appellant in this appeal, by special leave, which arises from the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in I.T.R.No.15 of 1990 passed on October 22, 1991. By the impugned order the High Court answered the following two questions, referred to it at the instance of the appellant, in the affirmative that is against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue:- (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that Tribunal was justified in holding that there was evidence before the Commissioner of Income-tax that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that Rs. 3,66,649 was a taxable receipt for the assessment year 1983-84? The facts giving rise to these questions may be noticed here. The case relates to the assessment year 1983-84 for which the accounting period of the appellant ended on February 28, 1983. The appellant is a public limited company. It entered into an agreement for sale of the estate of rubber plantation measuring acres 699 of land for consideration of Rs. 210 lakhs wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e; (ii) that the amount of Rs. 3,66,649 was in reality agricultural income and, therefore, ought not to have been brought to tax. Mr. Anoop G. Choudhary, learned senior counsel for the respondent, asserted that the Income-tax Officer passed the order without application of mind and inasmuch as it resulted in loss of tax it was also prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263(1) of the Act by the Commissioner was justified and legal. He further submitted that the second contention was not open to the appellant as the basic facts found by the Appellate Tribunal were not questioned before the High Court. To consider the first contention, it will be apt to quote Section 263(1) which is relevant for our purpose:- 263. Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue - (1) The Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing to be made such inquiry as he deems neces....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of revenue. There must be some grievous error in the Order passed by the Income-tax Officer, which might set a bad trend or pattern for similar assessments, which on a broad reckoning, the Commissioner might think to be prejudicial to the interests of Revenue Administration. In our view this interpretation is too narrow to merit acceptance. The scheme of the Act is to levy and collect tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this task is entrusted to the Revenue. If due to an erroneous order of the Income-tax Officer, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an Income-tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income-tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot....