2021 (10) TMI 747

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) dated 31.08.2018 under section 143(3) of the Act concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 was sought to be set aside for reframing the assessment in terms of supervisory jurisdiction. 2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the revisional action of the PCIT whereby the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was directed to pass the assessment order denovo after making enquiries on the points set out in the notice which has already examined and considered during the original assessment proceedings concerning A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee has challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the PCIT under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessment Order under revision is n....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ore the Tribunal. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is contended on behalf of the assessee that the case was selected under limited scrutiny for this very point and the issue was examined threadbare by the A.O. It was submitted that the assessee received consideration of Rs. 2,44,88,918/- on account of transfer of Long Term Capital Asset i.e. sale of ownership land on 20.08.2015 and claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act. The Capital Gains arising to the assessee stands at Rs. 41,85,879/- in respect of his share on sale of co-ownership land. The assessee claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act by utilisation of sale consideration to the extent of deposit o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of : - CIT vs. Sardarmal Kohari (2008) 302 ITR 286 (Mad), Page Nos.160 to 162 of Paper Book, relevant finding on page no.162; - Bhavana Cuccria vs. ITO (2017) 165 ITD 124 (Chd.) Page Nos.119 to 129 of Paper Book, relevant findings on page no.129; - Pr. CIT vs. Dilip Ranjrekar (2019) taxmann.com 114 (Karn.) Page Nos.130 to 132 of Paper Book, relevant findings on page no.131; - Bal Kishan Atal vs. ACIT (2019) 176 ITD 330 (Del), page Nos.163 to 173 of Paper Book, relevant findings on page no.170. 8. The assessee further contents that where the assessee has utilised the consideration for construction of residential house, the spirit of section 54F is substantially complied with and, therefore, the deduction claimed under section 54....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ew taken by the A.O. to allow deduction under section 54F of the Act based on parameters of utilisation made in construction is thus plausible view and cannot be faulted. This being so, the order of the A.O. cannot be held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Consequently, the powers available under section 263 of the Act cannot be exercised in the facts of the case. 11. This apart, we also notice the plea of the assessee that a fresh information coming to the knowledge of the PCIT after completion of the assessment cannot be relied upon adverse to the assessee without following the basic principles of natural justice. As can be seen from the assessment records, vide letter dated 09.03.2021, requested the Revisio....