Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.267/SRT/2018 (िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Atul K. Patel, V Principal Commissioner of Income B-34, Kalpana Society-2, Rander Road, TAx-3, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura s. Adajan Patiya, Surat. Gate, Surat. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACKPP 4749 F (Assessee) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Sapnesh Sheth, C.A Respondent by : Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT-DR
सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 15/09/2021 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 09/11/2021 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2013-14, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat [ in short “ld PCIT”], dated 12.03.2018. By way of this appeal, assessee has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The grievances raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Pr. Commissioner of income-tax has erred in passing revisionary order u/s 263 of the I.T. Act setting aside the order of ld. Assessing officer passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 11.03.2016 for the year under consideration although said order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. It is therefore prayed that order passed by Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 263 of the I.T. Act setting aside the order of assessing officer and directing assessing officer to make fresh investigations with regard to claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act may please be quashed.”
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee before us is an individual and has filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 31/07/2013, declaring total income at Rs.7,70,930/-. The assessee is a salaried person and has earned salary income and interest income from fixed deposits during the year under consideration. The total income of the assessee has been assessed, by assessing officer, vide order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 11/03/2016 at Rs.41,46,100/-.
Later, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, [ in short “ld PCIT”], has exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld PCIT, on examination of assessment records, noticed that assessee had sold an agriculture land at Rs.2,46,92,000/- on 28/06/2012 along with one other co-owner. Further, the assessee has also purchased new agriculture land at Rs.1,00,00,000/- along with one other co-owner on 20/04/2012 i.e. prior to the sale of the aforementioned agriculture land. The assessee has claimed deduction under section 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.80,02,500/-. As per the assessment records available, it was noticed by ld PCIT that though the Assessing Officer had called the sale and purchase deeds of the above properties for verification but has not specifically looked into the eligibility of the assessee on the issue of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54B of the Act, while finalizing assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, ld PCIT observed that said assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, ld PCIT has issued a show cause notice, dated 02.02.2018, to the assessee, to explain the transaction and to prove that assessee is eligible to claim exemption under section 54B of the Act.
In response to the show cause notice, assessee submitted written submission before ld PCIT, which is reproduced below: “1. In your above notice, it is observed that assessment order dated 11.03.2016 was passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T Act allowing deduction of Rs.80,02,500/- u/s 54B of the Act but on examination of case records, it is observed that agricultural land was sold on 28.06.2012 and investment was made in new
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
agricultural land on 20.04.2012, On this basis your honour has alleged that there is incorrect computation of capital gain of the assessee for the year under consideration as there is violation of provisions of section 54B of the I.T Act. 2. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention here that date of 28.06.2012 referred by you represent the date of registration of sale deed whereas actually, the sale deed in writing was executed on 20.03.2012 & stamp papers were also purchased on 16.03.2012. Hence, transfer took place on 20.03.2012 & only registration was done on 28.06.2012. Thus, it is a fact that new agriculture land is purchased on 20.04.2012 i.e. after the date of transfer of impugned land & within the time limit prescribed u/s 54B of the I.T Act. The Ld. AO has verified the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 54B of the Act as he has issued notice dated 25.02.16 & 29.02.16 to assessee & the claim is allowed after verification & application of mind. Consequently, there is no error in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54B of the I.T Act. 3. Moreover, on perusal of both sale deeds it is quite evident that assessee has received full sale consideration from 08.08.2011 to 20.03.2012 and the same fund is used for making investment in new agricultural land as payment for purchase of new land is made from 15.03.2012 to 10.04,2012 out of sale consideration received towards sale of impugned land. It is relevant to mention here that the intention of legislature is to give deduction when sale proceeds of agricultural land are invested in purchase of another agricultural land and hence, all the conditions are satisfied even otherwise also. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee is correct & the same is not prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. In support of the contention that deduction is available under the above facts, reliance is placed on ITAT Pune bench decision in the case of Ramesh N Jakhadi v. ITO-41 ITD 368 (Pune). In this case law, reliance has been placed on CBDT circular no. 359 dated 10/05/1983 issued in connection with relief u/s 54E of the Act. It was observed that logic in aforesaid circular issued in connection with section 54E would apply with equal force to relief u/s 54B also. Reliance is also placed on another decision of ITAT Chennai Bench in the case of ACIT V. Dr. S. Balasundram-ITA No.1832/Mds/2012 ateded 27.05.2013 wherein identical view has been taken. Copy of both decisions is enclosed herewith. As such even if matter is debatable & if Ld. AO takes a particular view in favour of assessee, the assessment order cannot be treated as erroneous.”
However, ld PCIT has rejected the contention of the assessee and held that order passed by the assessing officer is not sustainable in the eye of law. The important observations of Ld PCIT are as follows:
(i) The assessee in his submission had stated that date of 28/06/2012 referred the date of registration of sale deed whereas actually, the sale deed in writing
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
was executed on 20/03/2012 and stamp papers were also purchased on 16/03/2012. Hence, transfer took place on 20/03/2012 and only registration was done on 28/06/2012. This view of the assessee implies that the transfer took place in the Financial Year 2011-12 relevant to Assessment Year 2012-13 and therefore the assessee should have offered capital gain in the Assessment Year 2012-13 and had claimed deduction under section 54B of the Act in Assessment Year 2012-13 which had not been done by the assessee. The assessee has filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and has offered capital gain and also has claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act in the same assessment year, therefore it concludes that the land has been sold during Financial Year 2012-13 i.e. on 28/06/2012 as per registration document and not on 20/03/2012 as now stated by the assessee.
(ii) The assessee has purchased second property on 20/04/2012 and the same is accepted by the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that the second property was purchased prior to the sale of first property and thus assessee is not eligible for claim of deduction u/s 54B of the I.T Act, 1961. Then, ld PCIT has referred the provisions of section 54B of the I.T. Act, 1961, which is reproduced as under: “54B.(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used by the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family for agricultural purposes (hereinafter referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of two years after that date, purchased any other land for being used for agricultural purposes, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say:- (i) If the amount of the capital gain is greater than the cost of the land so purchased (hereinafter referred to as the new asset), the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase, the cost shall be nil; or (ii) If the amount of the capitals gain is equal to or less than the cost of the new asset, the capital gain shall not be charged
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
under section 45; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer with a period of three years of its purchase, the cost shall be reduced, by the amount of the capital gain.”
(iii) The condition of the Section 54B of the I.T Act that the land in question should be used for agricultural purposes by the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place has also not fulfilled in this case because the assessee has not shown any agricultural income in his return of income (ROI) for the Assessment Year 2013-14.
Based on the above facts, ld PCIT observed that case laws on which the reliance is placed by the assessee were not applicable to the assessee, as in this case the investment in another agriculture land is made prior to the sale of agriculture land. It is only an afterthought of the assessee that the first property was sold prior to the purchase of second property. Also regarding that Assessing Officer takes a particular view in favour of the assessee is not correct as the Assessing Officer has neither asked any question regarding assessee’s eligibility for claim u/s 54B in respect of dates on which purchase and sale took place nor has discussed the same in assessment order. Therefore, ld PCIT held that assessee was not eligible to claim deduction u/s 54B of the Act as the Assessing Officer has not verified the claim of assessee, therefore the order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 11.03.2016 was treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue therefore, ld PCIT directed the AO to look into the deduction u/s 54B of the Act and make a fresh assessment order.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us.
Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee pleads before us that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer issued notice to the assessee, vide notice dated 25.02.2016 wherein the assessing officer has asked the details of agricultural land sold by the assessee. In Page | 5
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
response, the assessee submitted the required documents and explanation, vide paper book page no.127. Learned Counsel took us through the sale deed of agricultural land which is placed at paper book pages 3 to 67 and contended that the transaction made by the assessee is genuine, as the assessee has received part payment in the financial year 2011-12. The Ld. Counsel further took us through paper book page 122, wherein the bank statement of the assessee shows part payment received by the assessee in advance against sale of agricultural land and amount invested in purchasing another agricultural land are also getting reflected. The said bank statement shows some part payment received in financial year 2011-12 and some part payment in financial year 2012-13. Therefore ld. Counsel claims that during the assessment stage, the assessee has submitted the details as required by the Assessing Officer and Assessing Officer has examined the issue and applied his mind, therefore the order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, hence the order passed by the ld PCIT under section 263 of the Act may be quashed.
On the other hand, Shri Ritesh Mishra, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue has relied on para no. 4 and 5 of the order passed by the Ld. PCIT under section 263 of the Act, which we have already noted in para no.5 of this order, hence the same is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. He stated that ld PCIT has passed order on sound reasoning therefore, order passed by him under section 263 may be upheld.
We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld PCIT and other materials brought on record. We note that Assessing Officer has asked from the assessee, during the assessment stage, by way of a letter dated 25.02.2016, to submit the details in respect of agricultural land and the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 54B
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
of the Act. The relevant para of letter dated 25.02.2016, of assessing officer ( to the extent useful for our analysis), is reproduced below: “3……The agricultural land should be used by the individual or his parents for agricultural purpose at least for a period of two years immediately preceding the date of transfer.From the submitted details and documents, it is found that you had not shown any agriculture income in last two years i.e.2012-13 & 2013-14, also not submitted the proof of Agriculture activity or agriculture income from the land bearing R.S. No. Block No. 197 & R.S. No. 86/1, Sp. Mtr.12346/ of Olpad, till date to this office. 4. Thus, the amount claimed as exemption in the computation of income for the AY.2013-14 is not offered for the taxation has thereby escaped from the assessment. In this circumstances, you are requested, please show cause as to why the amount of claimed as exemption u/s 54B of the Act should not be treated as unexplained, exemption and added back to your total income for the year under consideration.” 11. In response to the above said notice, the assessee had submitted its reply before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer after considering the reply of the assessee has framed assessment order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, dated 11.03.2016. The reply of the assessee against the show cause notice, which is placed at paper book page no. 127, (the relevant part of the reply ), is reproduced below: “4. Detail of the property sale and purchase during the year under consideration along with the source of the purchase of property, copy of the sale deed and purchase deed and Valuation report for the property sold during the year under consideration are enclosed herewith in “Annexure: 4.”
Therefore, we note that during the assessment stage, the Assessing Officer raised the specific query, and the assessee has submitted its reply along with documentary evidences, which is placed at paper book page no.127. The assessing officer has examined these documents relating to land and exemption under section 54B of the Act, and thereafter framed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act, hence order passed by the Assessing Officer should not be erroneous.
The contention of the ld. PCIT that sale deed in writing was executed on 20.03.2012, therefore capital gain should be assessable in the A.Y.2012-13 instead of A.Y.2013-14. We note that in assessee’s case, no doubt, the sale deed
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
in writing was executed on 20.03.2012 and part payment of the land so sold by assessee, was received by the assessee, in the Financial Year 2011-12, which is placed at paper book page no.57. The part payment so received by assessee, was utilized by him to purchase the another agricultural land on 20.04.2012. Therefore, the assessee purchased another agricultural land out of the sale consideration received in FY.2011-12. Of course, some part payment was also received in the F.Y.2012-13 and finally the sale deed was registered on 28.06.2012. Therefore, we note that Assessing Officer has applied his mind and noted that part payment of the land so sold by assessee, was utilized by him to purchase the another agricultural land on 20.04.2012, therefore assessee has rightly offered the capital gain in the assessment year 2013-14. Having examined these facts, the assessing officer had allowed the claim of the assessee.
The Assessing Officer has also discussed the issue of agricultural land and exemption under section 54B of the Act in his order, vide para no.4 & 5 of the assessment order wherein the Assessing Officer after taking into account entire facts of the assessee, framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, dated 11.03.2016, therefore order passed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
We note that Hon`ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mrs. Parveen P. Bharucha vs 2 Union Of India, WRIT PETITION NO. 10437 OF 2011, dated 27 June, 2012 held that an investment made in Bonds out of advance received for transfer of land before the actual date of transfer would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 54B of the Act. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is as follows:
“8 The Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Narhari Jakhdi (supra) while construing Section 54B of the said Act applied the Circular No.359 dated 10.5.1983 to hold that an investment made in Bonds out of advance received for transfer of land before the actual date of transfer would be entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 54B of the said Act. Therefore, the view taken by Respondent No.1 in the order dated 28.11.2008 is a possible view in Page | 8
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
law and the notice issued to reopen the assessment is only on account of change of opinion. In fact in the affidavit in reply dated 19.12.2012 the Respondent No. 1 has stated that reassessment SNC 14 WP 10437- 11(final).doc proceedings within a period of 4 years can be initiated on account of change of opinion. This is in the face of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Kelvinator (supra). The reasons recorded for reopening the assessment refer only to facts which were already on record at the time when assessment order dated 28.11.2008 was passed. 9 Further, at the hearing Mr. Vimal Gupta contended that Respondent No.1 while passing the order of the assessment dated 28.11.2008 did not apply his mind and/or consider the fact that Rs. 90.84 lacs had been invested in terms of Section 54EC prior to the completion of sale. The basis of his aforesaid submission is that the same is not discussed in the order dated 28.11.2008. This ground urged by Mr. Gupta during the hearing is a new ground which does not find mention in the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment. As held by this Court in the matter of Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR page 332, it is not open to improve upon the reasons recorded at the time of reopening the assessment by filing an affidavit and/or making oral submissions at the hearing of the Petition. The Court very categorically held that the reasons recorded must clearly establish some facts or material which lead to escapement of income. In any view of the matter the SNC 15 WP 10437-11(final).doc aforesaid submission is not sustainable for the reason that if a query is raised during assessment proceedings and the assessee meets the query and/or supplies the information called for, it must be presumed that the officer was satisfied before allowing the claim and there is no need to discuss the matter in his assessment order. As observed by the Gujarat High Court in the matter of CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works reported in 309 ITR 67. "The contention on behalf of the Revenue that the assessment order does not reflect any application of mind as to the eligibility otherwise under section-80-I of the Act requires to be noted to be rejected. An assessment order cannot not incorporate reasons for making/granting a claim of deduction. If it does so, an assessment order would cease to be an order and become an epic tome. The reasons are not far to seek. Firstly, it would cast an almost impossible burden on the Assessing Officer, considering the workload that he carries and the period of limitation within which an order is required to be made; and secondly the order is an appealable order. An appeal lies, would be filed, only against disallowances which an assessee feels aggrieved with". 10 Further the reasons recorded by Respondent No.1 for reopening the assessment do not state that the deduction under Section 54E was not considered in the assessment proceedings. In fact from the reasons, it appears that all facts were available on record and according to the respondents was only erroneously SNC 16 WP 10437-11(final).doc granted. This is a clear case of review of an order. The application of law or interpretation of a statue leading to a particular conclusion cannot lead to a conclusion that tax has escaped assessment for this would then certainly amount to review of an order which is not permitted unless so specified in a statue. The order dated 14.11.2011 disposing of the Petitioner's objection to initiation of proceedings under Section 147 of the said Act also proceeds on the view that there has been
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
non application of mind during the original proceedings for assessment. This is unsustainable and as held this court in Asian Paints Ltd. v. Dy. C.I.T. 308 ITR 195 a fresh application of mind by the Assessing officer on the same set of facts amounts to a change of opinion and does not warrant reopening. In fact our court followed the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Kelvinator (supra) wherein it has been held as under: "We also cannot accept the submission of Mr. Jolly to the effect that only because in the assessment order, detailed reasons have not been recorded an analysis of the materials on the record by itself may justify the Assessing Officer to initiate a proceeding under Section 147 of the Act. The said submission is fallacious. An order of assessment can be passed either in terms of sub section (1)of section 143 or sub-section (3) of section 143. When a regular order of assessment is passed in terms of the said sub-section (3) of section 143 a presumption can be raised that such an order has been passed on application of mind. It is well known that a SNC 17 WP 10437-11(final).doc presumption can also be raised to the effect that in terms of clause (e) of section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. If it be held that an order which has been passed purportedly without application of mind would itself confer jurisdiction upon the Assessing Officer to reopen the proceeding without anything further, the same would amount to giving a premium to an authority exercising quasi judicial function to take benefit of its own wrong". 11.One more point very strenuously urged by Mr. Gupta for the Revenue was that the court should not at this stage quash the proceedings as the only obligation of the Revenue is to establish that prima facie material exists to show that income has escaped assessment and the party can thereafter establish in reassessment proceedings that the deductions as allowed in the original assessment proceedings are valid. 12 The issue here is one of jurisdiction to issue notice and not sufficiency of reasons in issuing a notice for reassessment. We are considering the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 to reopen proceedings. In view of what is stated earlier, we do not find any merit in this contention.” 16. We note that Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Rahul G. Patel [2018] 97 taxmann.com598 (Ahd.Trib) held that where assessee invests earnest money or advance received on sale of capital assets in specified assets before date of transfer of asset, amount received will qualify for exemption under section 54EC of the Act. The important findings of the Coordinate Bench is reproduced below:
“19. In the next ground of appeal, grievance of the assessee is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in not granting deduction/exemption under section 54EC of the Act amounting to Rs.50 lakhs.
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
Brief facts of the case are that after agreement to sell the assessee has received sale consideration from the vendee. He has made investment in NHAI bonds and claimed deduction under section 54EC. The ld.AO has observed that such investments were made before the registration of sale deed, and therefore, he is not entitled for the exemption. The issue is, whether investment made from the advance received on sale of capital asst will qualify for grant of exemption under section 50EC or not. Board has issued a circular whereby it has laid down that such assessee would be entitled for exemption. Circular bearing no.359 dated 10.5.1983 reads as under: CIRCULAR : NO. 359 [F.NO. 207/8/82-IT(A-ll)], DATED 10-5-1983 1. Section 54E provides for exemption of long-term capital gains if the net consideration is invested by the assessee in specified assets within a period of six months after the date of such transfer. A technical interpretation of section 54E could mean that the exemption from tax on capital gains would not be available if part of the consideration is invested prior to the date of execution of the sale deed as the investment cannot be regarded as having been made within a period of six months after the date of transfer. 2. On consideration of the matter in consultation with the Ministry of Law, it is felt that the foregoing interpretation would go against the purpose and spirit of the section. As the section contemplates ITA No.2767/Ahd/2016 - 15 - investment of the net consideration in specified assets for a minimum period and as earnest money or advance is a part of the sale consideration, the Board have decided that if the assessee invests the earnest money or the advance received in specified assets before the date of transfer of asset, the amount so invested will qualify for exemption under section 54E. 21. Considering the above circular, we allow this ground of appeal and direct the AO to grant exemption under section 54EC of the Act. Ground no.3 is allowed.” 17. Therefore, taking into account the ratio laid down in the above cited precedents, we note that in assessee`s case under consideration, the assessee has received part payment in advance in the financial year 2011-12, and the said part payment so received in advance, was utilized by the assessee in purchasing another agricultural land therefore assessee is entitled to claim exemption under section 54B of the Act. These facts were examined by the assessing officer while making the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, therefore, assessment framed by the assessing officer should not be erroneous.
We are very much conscious of Hon'ble Apex Court’s landmark decision in the case of Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC) wherein
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
their Lordship have held that twin conditions needs to be satisfied before exercising revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act by the CIT. The twin conditions are that the order of the Assessing Officer must be erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. In the following circumstances, the order of the AO can be held to be erroneous order, that is (i) if the Assessing Officer’s order was passed on incorrect assumption of fact; or (ii) incorrect application of law; or (iii)Assessing Officer’s order is in violation of the principle of natural justice; or (iv) if the order is passed by the Assessing Officer without application of mind; (v) if the AO has not investigated the issue before him; then the order passed by the Assessing Officer can be termed as erroneous order. Coming next to the second limb, which is required to be examined as to whether the actions of the AO can be termed as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. When this aspect is examined one has to understand what is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industries (supra) held that this phrase i.e. “prejudicial to the interest of the revenue’’ has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the Assessing Officer. Their Lordship held that it has to be remembered that every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of Assessing Officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. When the Assessing Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss to the revenue, or where two views are possible and the Assessing Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interest of the revenue “unless the view taken by the Assessing Officer is unsustainable in law”.
In the conclusion, we are of the view that none of the reasons set out by the ld PCIT for invoking the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act are sustainable. The impugned order of the ld PCIT has to be quashed for the reason that order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised in the impugned order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason of any lack of inquiry that the Assessing Officer ought to have made in the given facts and
ITA No.267/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 Sh. Atul K.Patel
circumstances of the case. We accordingly quash the order u/s 263 of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 09/11/2021 by placing the result on the Notice Board as per Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963.
Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat/िदनांक/ Date: 09/11/2021 / Dkp outsourcing Sr.P.S Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat