TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d return of income declaring taxable income at Rs. 1,65,28,620/-. The return was initially processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and subsequently the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS guidelines on the issue of "Deduction claimed under the head Capital Gain ". The limited scrutiny assessment was completed vide 22.11.2017 wherein the returned income was accepted. Subsequently, notice u/s. 263 of the Act was issued on 19.2.2020 by the Ld. PCIT Chandigarh, contents of which are being reproduced herein-under for a ready reference. "Please refer to the return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 filed on 29.08.2015 declaring income of Rs. 1,65,28,620/- and the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the IT Act passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(1), Mohali (the assessing officer concerned in your case) on 22.11.2017 vide which returned income of the assessee was accepted. 2. The case was selected under CASS for reviewing issue of "Deduction claimed under the head Capital Gain." As per information documents available on records, it is seen that you have sold urban agriculture land for Rs. 13,09,68,750/- on 14.08.2014 and earned long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 12,55,08,3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing officer to pass a fresh assessment order after inquiring in to the correctness of the assessee's claim of purchase of agricultural land and deposit of balance in capital gain account scheme. 2.2. Against this order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee has now approached this Tribunal challenging the exercise of revisionary powers by the Ld. PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act by raising the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on law, facts & circumstances of the case, the Worthy Pr. CIT has grossly erred assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 even when: 1.1. The original assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) did not satisfy the twin conditions of being an 'erroneous order' and 'prejudicial to the interest of revenue'. 1.2. The Worthy Pr. CIT has erred in setting aside the assessment order u/s. 143(3) and in directing the AO to make assessment afresh on the ground that AO had not conducted worthwhile enquiries during the assessment proceeding even when the AO had conducted thorough enquiries and also most importantly the Pr. CIT failed to carry our any enquiry himself and also failed to demonstrate which most necessary enquiry the Ld. AO failed to carry out. 1.3. The Wort....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....course of assessment proceedings and had passed the assessment order after due consideration of the facts of the case as well as after duly considering the submissions of the assessee in this regard and, therefore, it was wrong on the part of the Ld. PCIT to allege that no proper inquiry had been made by the Assessing officer. He drew our attention to the voluminous documents filed during the course of assessment proceedings, copies of which have been placed in the paper book filed by the assessee. Our attention was specifically drawn to the purchase deeds, copies of Khasra and Girdawari, copy of certificate of Patwari and sale deeds and it was submitted that these documents were very much before the Assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings and that the Assessing officer had taken the view of accepting the returned income after due consideration of these documents. He also drew our attention the query letter raised by the Assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings wherein the Assessing officer had specifically required the assessee to furnish details of large deduction claimed u/s. 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA of the Act. 3.1. It was further ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n-issue in the year under appeal. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have also perused the material on record. We have also gone through the impugned order as well as the show cause notice and the objections of the assessee to the show cause notice. We have also gone through the various documents filed by the assessee before us and we agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that the assessee had filed voluminous evidences in support of his claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act by filing the copies of the purchase deeds, sale deeds as well as copies of Girdawari and Sarsai. There is also a certificate of 'Patwari' on record and from the said documents, it is very much evident that the lands in question were of agricultural in nature. It is also seen that the assessee has also submitted computation of capital gains as well as computation of exemption, both before the Assessing officer as well as before the Ld. PCIT. It is also seen that the assessee had also submitted these documentary evidences again before the Ld. PCIT in response to the show cause notice but the same did not find favour with the Ld. Ld. PCIT and the Ld. Ld. PCIT came to the conclusion that the Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... reported in [2011] 332 ITR 167 (Del.) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has ruled that one has to keep in mind the distinction between 'lack of inquiry' and 'inadequate inquiry' and further if there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that would not by itself give occasion to the Commissioner to pass orders u/s. 263 of the Act, merely because he has a different opinion in the matter. It was further held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that if any Assessing officer, acting in accordance with law, makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately. 6.4. Similar were the observation of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Ltd. [2012] 343 ITR 329 (Del). In this case, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court went on to observe that in case where there is in-adequate inquiry but no lack of inquiry, the CIT must give and record a finding that the order/enquiry made is erroneous and that this can happen only if an inquiry and verification is conducted by the CIT. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer was erroneous. While exercising such power, the Commissioner was bound to take into account all relevant facts. If order invoking the said power proceeds on an erroneous assumption, the same could be set aside by the Tribunal. Finding of the Tribunal is not shown to be perverse. No substantial question of law arises." 6.8. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment reported in the case of Malabar Industries vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has held as under: "A bare reading of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it is that the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent-if the order of the Income-tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue-recourse cannot be had to sectio....