SUMAN DNYANESHWAR DEOKULE,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -(5),, PUNE

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15 arises against the Pr. CIT-5, Pune’s order dated 14-01-2019 passed in case No.Pn/PrCIT- 5/Admn/263/SDD/2018-19, in proceedings u/s. 263(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the PCIT’s section 263 revision directions terming the corresponding regular assessment dated 19-12-2016 as an erroneous one causing prejudice to interest of the Revenue. Both the parties invited our attention to the PCIT’s detailed discussion raising three issues of section 54F deduction, section 54B deduction and non assessment of assessee’s interest income amounting to Rs.332055/- by the Assessing Officer.

Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost claim of section 54F deduction, there is hardly a dispute that she had sold 50% of her share on 24-12-2013 fetching Rs.41365470/- out of which she reinvested a portion thereof in purchasing in residential house bearing Plot No.575, Sector 28, Akurid, Pune by paying Rs.1.11 crores and Rs.35 lac on 25-04-2014; coupled with stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.6.66 lacs and Rs.30,000/-; respectively, followed by further payment of Rs.2.1 lac and Rs.30,000/- under the very twin heads. The co-purchaser with other is stated to be her nephew Shri Hemant Arun Deokul. Mr. Meena vehemently argued in light of the PCIT’s revision direction that this section 54F claim needs to be verified regarding the impugned deduction vis-à-vis utilization of the consideration money from her capital gains account.

We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing arguments once it has come on record that the assessee has reinvested her capital gains in purchasing a residential house within almost four months only. We make it clear that the PCIT’s revision direction nowhere allege violation of any statutory condition in section 54F of the Act once the assessee has reinvested her capital gains in own name only. Hon’ble apex court’s land mark decision in Malabar Industrial Co. Vs. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) has settled the law long back that an assessment has to be both erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of the Revenue; simultaneously before the prescribed authority sets into motion its revision jurisdiction. We reiterate that the PCIT’s revision directions regarding the instant issue in pages 4 and 5 have simply brushed aside the assessee’s explanation thereby directing the Assessing Officer to verify her section 54F claim. The same stand reversed therefore.

The factual position is hardly any different regarding the assessee’s four investments made in as many parcels of agricultural land. Learned CIT-DR could hardly dispute that the PCIT himself has observed that the relevant revenue records duly indicate land situated at 106B, Tasgaon of area 2.25 R, 08R (both purchase on 25-07-2014), at 735/3 Tasgaon measuring 13.81 R purchased on 16-03-2015 and at Gat No. 109, Ambi, Maval, Pune on 25-05-2015 are agricultural only. Mr. Meena sought to buttress the point that the assessee had paid stamp charges at industrial rates and therefore, she is not entitled for section 54B deduction. We find no substance in Revenue’s instant arguments once the assessee lands purchased are agricultural in nature only going by the corresponding revenue records. We thus invoke stricter interpretation hereinaswell to decide the instant issue against the department.

Coming to the last issue of non assessment of assessee’s interest income, the same is found to be out of the purview of CASS scrutiny reason of capital gains only. We thus conclude that since it was an instance of the limited scrutiny, the Assessing Officer could not have added the impugned interest income. We thus reverse the learned PCIT’s revision direction qua the instant third issue as well. It is accordingly concluded that the learned PCIT erred in law and on facts in exercising his section 263 revision jurisdiction in the given facts and circumstances of the case. His impugned order stands reversed accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.