RAIZA ABBAS,CHENNAI vs. ACIT NON CORPORATE WARD 14(1), CHENNAI

O R D E R

PER DUVVURUL RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

3. On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. By reiterating the submissions as made before the ld. PCIT, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the specific issue sought to be reconsidered was actually considered by the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act. Moreover, in the order passed under section 263 of the Act, ld. PCIT has not point out any specific issue sought to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer, which he was not considered and therefore, on mere presumption, the ld. PCIT passed the revision order without any jurisdiction and prayed for confirming the assessment order. On the other hand, the ld. DR dutifully supported the order of the ld. PCIT.

4.1 While invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act and on perusal of the sale deed furnished during the assessment proceedings, the ld. PCIT has noticed that the construction of the building was completed only on 23.03.2013. The deed further shows that the property was a new building, and therefore, the deduction under section 54 of the Act was not available and short term capital gain is to be brought to tax. When the above observation was notified to the assessee and the submissions are reproduced as under: “We are submitting computation of total income & Account copy of improvement of property at Yercaud for your kind perusal. The above improvement of property was done at various date which is reflected in the Account copy. The total cost of construction was ₹.20,15,000/- and indexation cost was ₹.22,58,383/- & Net indexation benefit was only ₹.2,43,383/- which was invested in bond & exemption claimed u/s 54. This information as produced before Assessing Officer in the course of hearing & the Assessing Officer had examined the issue and discussed the same in assessment order. Hence, the order cannot be said erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on different view”. 4.2 After considering the above submissions of the assessee, the ld. PCIT has opined that the perusal of the assessment records shows that the Assessing Officer has not carried out any verification of the details filed by the assessee. He further opined that the assessment which has been completed without any verification of the facts is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and accordingly, while setting aside the assessment order, the Assessing Officer was directed to redo the assessment after carrying out verification into the computation of capital gains and the exemption claimed under section 54 of the Act.

4.3 On perusal of the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act, we find that the ld. PCIT has not given any specific findings as to what is erroneous in the assessment order and what is required to be verified by the Assessing Officer. On perusal of the assessment order, we find that after examining the working of the capital gain/loss, the Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee has wrongly computed the indexed cost of improvement with respect to the property and accordingly, after revision of the computation, the long term capital loss was reduced to NIL. In the revision order, after considering the explanations of the assessee, the ld. PCIT has not disputed the computation of indexed cost of improvement as well as investment in bond and claiming exemption under section 54 of the Act or given any findings as to what is required to be verified by the Assessing Officer and what way the assessment order is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Under the above facts and circumstances, the revision order passed under section 263 of the Act stands quashed and sustains the assessment order.