AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 1230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny under CASS and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 22.11.2017 accepting the income returned. 3. Subsequently, the learned PCIT, on perusal of the assessment record, noted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue for the following reasons: "2(i) The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to verify the deduction claimed under the head Capital Gains. In this case, the assessee, along with three others, entered into development agreement with M/s. Ace Venture India Pvt. Ltd on 5.6.2012, keeping land possession and rights with him. In consideration, the developer has allotted seven flats bearing Nos. 103, 203, 204, 205, 206, 303 & 304 in the month of February, 2015 at ACE RATNA PEARL Apartment. Out of the seven flats given to the assessee, the assessee has sold all flats during F.Y.2014-15 itself and claimed exemption u/s. 54F of I.T. Act. 2(ii). As verified from the assessment-record; it is evident that the assessee has sold all the flats bearing nos.,103, 203, 204, 205 206, 303 &304 without holding them for minimum period of three years from the date of acquisition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that in this case, the developer viz., M/s. Ace Venture of India Pvt Ltd has entered into development agreement on 05.06.2012 with the assessee along with three others and allotted seven flats bearing Nos. 103, 203, 204, 205, 206, 303 & 304 in the month of Feb. 2015 at ACE RATNA PEARL APARTMENT. Out of these seven flats, the assessee has sold all flats bearing Nos. 103, 203, 204, 205, 206, 303 & 304 during the financial year 2014-15 itself and claimed exemption u/s 54F. He verified from the assessment record, that the assessee has sold the flats bearing Nos. 103, 203, 204, 205, 206, 303 & 304 without holding them for minimum period of three years from the date of acquisition. According to him, the assessee's act of such sale within three years requires the capital gains of Rs. 1,57,08,220/- to be taxed @ 30% along with her net taxable income. 6. Relying on various decisions, he held that the Assessing Officer has applied the provisions incorrectly which constitutes an error and as such the assessment is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. He, therefore, set aside the order of the Assessing Officer with a direction to redo the assessment after examining th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account statement, development agreement, purchase deed copy etc. Referring to Page 17 to 18 of the Paper Book, he drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of the reply filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that since the Assessing Officer in the instant case after verifying various details given by the assessee has passed the order u/s 143(3), therefore, the same is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, the learned PCIT was not justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act. 9. The learned DR, on the other hand, submitted that the assessee in the instant case in his reply to the notice issued u/s 143(2) has herself mentioned that she has sold all the seven flats for a consideration of Rs. 1,66,23,000/-. The Assessing Officer without examining the contents of the letter has accepted the income returned and therefore, the very purpose for which the case was selected for scrutiny remained unverified. Further, the assessee without holding the seven flats for a period of 3 years from the date of acquisition claimed deduction u/s 54F after sell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and therefore, by allowing the claim of deduction u/s 54F, the order of the Assessing Officer has become erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Further, the order of the Assessing Officer is also very cryptic and the reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny have not been addressed at all. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) on 23.11.2017, in our opinion, has become erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned PCIT invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the order of the learned PCIT is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. ITA No. 566/Hyd/2020 - Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain 12. After hearing both sides, we find the assessee filed his return of income on 27.11.2015 declaring an income of Rs. 2,83,110/- which was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 22.11.2017. We find the learned PCIT on examination of the record noted that the assessee has not held the properties those were sold for a period of 3 years from the date of acquisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A perusal of the submission filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer shows that Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain has been allotted flat Nos.305, 306, 403, 404, 405, 406 and 503. However, when the assessee has retained 5 flats and invested in two more house properties i.e. property at Sunrise Valley (at Rs. 43,29,750/) and investment in another property at LB Nagar (at Rs. 1,11,60,000/-), then whether the assessee is entitled to deduction u/s 54F for holding more than two house properties has not been examined by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee has sold the flats bearing No.305 and 405 without holding it for a mandatory period of 3 years and therefore the allowability or otherwise of the Long-Term Capital Gain has also not been examined by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Assessing Officer, in our opinion, is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned PCIT invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the I.T. Act. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. ITA No.567/Hyd/2020 -Shri Ratanlal Jain 15. Af....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oss to Revenue arose for the year and accordingly initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the I.T. Act is bad in law. 6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 17. After hearing both the sides, we find the above grounds are identical to the grounds of appeal No.565/Hyd/2020. We have already decided the issue and the grounds raised by the assessee have been dismissed. Following similar reasonings, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. ITA No.568/Hyd/2020 - Smt. Chandra Devi Jain 18. After hearing both the sides, we find the assessee in the instant case filed her return of income on 27.11.2015 declaring an income of Rs. 3,06,200/- which was accepted by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) on 22.11.2017. The learned Pr.CIT on examination of the record noted that out of the seven flats allotted by the Developer, the assessee has sold two flats 505 & 506 and claimed deduction u/s 54F. According to the learned PCIT, the assessee without holding the assets under consideration for a period of 3 years could not have claimed the long-term capital gain and thereafter, by claiming the deduction u/s 54F of the I.T. Act. He, therefore, issued a s....