Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal challenges the invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Pr. CIT for AY 2015-16. The original assessment was framed u/s 143(3), then reopened u/s 147, and again accepted. The Pr. CIT alleged lack of enquiry regarding capital gains.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had duly enquired into the issue of capital gains during both the original and reassessment proceedings. The AO had applied his mind to the issue, and therefore, the revisionary order passed by the Pr. CIT was not justified.
Key Issues
Whether the revisionary order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 was justified when the Assessing Officer had already conducted due enquiry during regular and reassessment proceedings?
Sections Cited
263, 147, 143(3), 142(1), 54F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
Before: HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा�रणवष� / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ms. Rama Rani DCIT बनाम/ Vs. H. No 1058, Popular Enclave Circle 1(1), Sector 48-B, Chandigarh Chandigarh. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AERPR-2072-Q (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Ravinder Krishan (Advocate)– Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 30-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee assails invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr.CIT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 vide impugned order dated 14-03-2024 proposing revision of assessment as framed by Ld. AO u/s.147 of the Act on 29-03-2022. The registry has noted delay of 98 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee. It has been stated that the assessee was not in India when the order was served by the department. The supporting documents have also been attached. Upon perusal of the same, we are of the opinion that the assessee has established sufficient cause to explain the delay and accordingly, we admit the appeal and proceed for adjudication thereof on merits. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under.
It emerges that the returned income as filed by the assessee on 28- 08-2015 was subjected to scrutiny u/s 143(3) and an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) on 29-06-2017 accepting the returned income of the assessee. However, to verify capital gains and sources of investment, the case was reopened and notice was issued u/s 142(1) calling for various details from the assessee. The assessee filed the documents / explanations and after due verification thereof, the returned income of Rs.104.40 Lacs was again accepted in reassessment proceedings. The perusal of computation of income would show that the assessee declared Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.184.73 Lacs against which the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F for Rs.85.77 Lacs for the reason that it made investment in house property and also deposited certain amount in the capital gains account scheme to lay claim on this deduction.
Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT, upon perusal of case records, alleged that no enquiry was made with respect to capital gain of Rs.85.77 Lacs and assessment was completed without due verification thereof. However, the assessee assailed the revision and furnished computation of income and drew attention to various queries raised by Ld. AO during the course of original assessment proceedings wherein in notice u/s 142(1) dated 16- 01-2017, the assessee was directed to file details of new property along with relevant documents in support of the claim. A specific query was raised on the investment made by the assessee during the year. It was, inter-alia, submitted by the assessee that the proceeds were invested for the purchase of land at Sekkhomajra on which building had been constructed. The proof of deposit of Rs.50 Lacs in capital gain account scheme was also furnished along with copy of purchase deed of land. The building was stated to be constructed out of sale proceeds with the help of contractor Shri Bhupinder Singh. The case was reopened to re-appraise the same facts and after considering assessee’s explanation / submissions, the returned income was again accepted by Ld. AO. Thus, Ld. AO applied his mind to the impugned issue not only at the time of original assessment proceedings but also during reassessment proceeding and there was no lack of enquiry as alleged. In this background, the assessee assailed revision of the order. However, Ld. Pr. CIT ordered for revision of the order and directed Ld. AO to re-examine the issue of capital gains. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
From the facts as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, it is quite clear that the issue of computation of capital gains was duly been enquired into by Ld. AO not only at the time of regular assessment proceedings but also at the time of reassessment proceedings. The case of the assessee was reopened specifically to examine the claim of capital gains. During these proceedings, the assessee furnished relevant documentary evidences and explanation in support of capital gains computations. After being satisfied with assessee’s explanations / documents, the computation of capital gains was accepted on both the occasions. No perversity could be found in the order of Ld. AO and the records do not support the fact that the impugned issue was not examined by Ld. AO as expected of him. This being the case, the revision of the order could not be held to be justified. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation in quashing the impugned order.
The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 04-07-2025.