Income Tax Act, 1962 – Section 263 – Determination of capital gains – Assessment of income – Exercise of revisionary jurisdiction – Appellant/assessee along with his brother entered into development agreement with Heriall constructions Pvt Ltd for construction of villas and as per agreement, builder has to construct 64 villas out of which 32 villas were to be given to landowners – Assessee filed return of income for AY 2015-16 admitting nil income – Assessing Officer completed assessment after determination of capital gains – Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act and set aside order of AO – Whether PCIT has erred in holding that assessment order passed by AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to interest of Revenue – HELD – AO made enquiries in respect of capital gains and recorded sworn statement of assessee and enquired about non-disclosure of assets and liabilities and also status and utilization of land in question – AO made enquiry about value of land as on date of agreement of assessee with Heriall Constructions and made it a basis for determination of capital gains – On face of these facts, it cannot be said that AO did not make any verification whatsoever in respect of value of land for determination of capital gains accrued to assessee as on date of agreement – Assessment order is not erroneous insofar as prejudicial to interest of Revenue – Twin requirements of Section 263 of the Act to exercise revisionary jurisdiction are not satisfied in this matter – Order passed by PCIT under Section 263 of the Act quashed – Appeal is allowed


 

2022-VIL-1626-ITAT-HYD

 

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD

 

ITA No. 435/Hyd/2021

Assessment Year: 2015-16)

 

Date: 15.12.2022

 

GALLA RAVINDRANATH HUF

 

Vs

 

INCOME TAX OFFICER

 

Assessee by: Shri Shashank Dundu, AR

Revenue by: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR

 

BENCH

SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

ORDER

 

PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM:

 

Aggrieved by the order dated 20/03/2020 passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Tirupati (“Ld. PCIT”) in the case of Shri G. Ravindranath (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2015-16, assessee preferred this appeal.

 

2. It could be seen from the record that there is a delay of 417 days in preferring these appeals and the reason attributed for the delay in filing the appeals to the pandemic. As a matter of fact, though the learned DR does not concede to condone the delay, there is no denial of the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of M.A.No. 21/2022 in M.A.No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 by order dated 10/01/2022 held that in cases, where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01/03/2022, and in the event of actual balance period of limitation remaining with effect from 01/03/2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. Since the date of impugned order under this appeal is 20/03/2020, and the appeal being filed on 28/10/2021 shall be treated as filed within the period of limitation. We, therefore, now shall proceed to hear the appeal.

 

3. Brief facts of the case that could be gathered from the record are that during the financial year 2014-15 the assessee along with his brother entered into development agreement with M/s Heriall constructions Pvt. Ltd for construction of villas in 400 cents of land and as per the agreement the builder has to construct 64 villas out of which 32 villas were to be given to the landowners share. Assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 on 25/05/2017 admitting NIL income, and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”). Subsequently, the assessment was re-opened and according to the learned Assessing Officer, the provisions of section 47(2) of the Act are applicable to the development transaction and after receiving the objections of the assessee for re-opening the assessment and issuing summons under section 131 of the Act and recording the sworn statement, learned Assessing Officer concluded the assessment at Rs. 2,82,09,850/- towards the assessee’s share in the long term capital gains taking the consideration cost as per the development agreement at Rs. 6,000/- per sq.yd. Subsequently, the PCIT, Tirupati on a perusal of record found that the assessment order was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue inasmuch as the learned Assessing Officer did not make proper verification in respect of the value of land of builder’s share. According to the PCIT, the learned Assessing Officer should have taken the value of land fell to the share of owners at Rs. 13,67,60,500/- wherein the share of the assessee would come to Rs. 6,83,80,250/- instead of taking the value at Rs. 6,000/- per sq. yd.

 

4. Assessee is, therefore, aggrieved and filed this appeal stating that as per the Joint Development Agreement (JDA), the builder agreed to construct villas and give 50% thereof to the owners and the assessee was under the bonafide impression that under section 45(5A) of the Act, the capital gains tax can be paid only upon completion of construction and handing over the possession and labouring under such impression the assessee did not offer any taxable income in the assessment year 2015-16. Learned Assessing Officer, however, reopened the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and after making thorough examination of the market value of the property by obtaining the same from the office of the Sub-Registrar, the learned Assessing Officer determined the value at Rs. 6,000/- per sq.yd. learned AR submitted that even under section 50C of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer is under an obligation to take into consideration the SRO value and, therefore, the learned Assessing Officer was correct in considering the SRO value as against the cost of construction at a future date. Learned AR placed reliance on the decision in the case of Shri Vivekanand Padegal Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 923/Bang/2018, AY. 2013-14, dt. 03/09/2020 and in the case of PCIT Vs. Smt. Sarojini M. Kushe P.V.S.Beedies (P) Ltd., [2022] 442 ITR 327 (Karnataka) in support of his contention that in this sort of cases, section 50D of the Act is applicable and the cost of construction at a future point of time cannot be taken to be the basis for determining the capital gains.

 

5. It is further contended by the learned AR that when once the learned Assessing Officer considered a particular aspect, after verification from the Sub-Registrar’s Office, merely because there was no elaborate discussion to the satisfaction of the learned PCIT, unless and until it is established by the learned PCIT such an order will be neither erroneous nor would it be prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and both the factors must be satisfied independently.

 

6. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of the Revenue that the assessment order nowhere speaks about the basis for the learned Assessing Officer to consider Rs. 6,000/- per sq. yd. as against the capital gains at market value which are about three times than the capital gains assessed in the impugned order. When once the prejudice to the Revenue is caused because of non-verification of this fact by the Learned Assessing Officer, it automatically becomes erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue.

 

7. We have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. It could be seen from the order under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the learned Assessing Officer made enquiries in respect of the capital gains by issuing summons under section 131 after re-opening the assessment. He also recorded the sworn statement of the assessee and enquired about the non-disclosure of the assets and liabilities and also the status and utilization of the land in question. Learned Assessing Officer also elicited from the assessee that there was a contract with M/s. Heriall Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

 

8. Assessee also produced the letter dated 27/10/2021 addressed to the Income Tax Officer with a request to furnish the basis along with supporting documents for the SRO value of the land adopted in the assessment order for computation of capital gains. Copy of the letter dated 29/11/2017 said to have been issued by the learned Assessing Officer to the assessee is in fact a letter addressed by the Sub-Registrar to the Income Tax Officer where under the Sub-Registrar informed the Income Tax Officer that on verification of the property in question, it was found out that its market value was about Rs. 6,000/- per sq. yd. as on 17/10/2014. This letter of the Sub-Registrar contains the reference of Income Tax Officer’s letter dated 27/11/2017 in -/ITO/W-2/2017-18. It is therefore clear that the learned Assessing Officer made enquiry about the value of the land as on the date of agreement of assessee with M/s. Heriall Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and made it a basis for determination of the capital gains.

 

9. On the face of these facts, it cannot be said that the learned Assessing Officer did not make any verification whatsoever in respect of the value of the land for determination of the capital gains accrued to the assessee as on the date of the agreement and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment order is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The twin requirements of section 263 of the Act for the PCIT to exercise the revisionary jurisdiction are not satisfied in this matter. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Company Ltd., 243 ITR 83 (SC), we find it difficult to sustain the order passed under section 263 of the Act and the same is accordingly quashed.

 

10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

 

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of December, 2022.

 

DISCLAIMER: Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order accurately and correctly however the access, usage and circulation is subject to the condition that publisher is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions.