2022 (6) TMI 449

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and hence, set aside. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- "1) The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle, Mumbai-1, erred in passing an order u/s 263 without jurisdiction. 2) The Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle Mumbai-1, erred in holding that the order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 dated 16/11/2018 is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue without appreciating the fact that the Learned Assessing Officer had applied his mind and had taken a plausible view and the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle Mumbai- 1 could not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in a casual manner as the return of income was filed which did not show any income under the head income from capital gains and did not show any claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. Despite this, the learned Assessing Officer allowed the same. 04. The assessee replied in the original return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act that assessee inadvertently missed out in showing the capital gains. However, in the computation of total income, it shows Long Term Capital Gain and claimed exemption under Section 54 of the Act. 05. Further, during the course of hearing before Assessing Officer the assessee submitted the relevant details along with the copy of agreement for the claim of deduction under Section 54 of the Act. As....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... case of Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 and therefore, the facts clearly shows that order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He further held that assessee in the instant case was even failed to show how the capital gain derived on sale of immovable property can be considered for taxation in two different hands. Further, nothing is available on record to establish the fact that both are owner in equal proportion and both had made equal investment in the property. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) invoking explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act held that assessment order passed by the learned Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Rev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nquiries. He therefore, stated that the order passed by the learned Assessing Officer under Section 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. 09. The learned CIT Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned PCIT. 010. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. In this case, original return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act did not show the capital gain earned by the assessee, therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act. In the reopened assessment proceedings along with the return filed, assessee disclosed the capital gain at Rs. nil. The working of the capit....