Sri Sanjoy Saha, L/h of Late Samarendra Nath Shaw, Kolkata V. Pr.CIT-11, Kolkata

ITA 1117/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6513 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: R K BISWAS
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 250; 37; 263; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 1117/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SRI SANJOY SAHA..................APPELLANT L/H OF LATE SAMARENDRA NATH SHAW (SINCE DECEASED) C/O, SAMAR 4, GORKEY TERRACE KOLKATA 700 017 (W.B.) [PAN : ALAPS 6977 R] VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 11, KOLKATA.........RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI R.K. BISWAS, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. DR.P. K. SRIHARI, JCIT, SR. D/R APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 9 TH , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 31 ST , 2019 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 11, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD. PR. CIT), DT. 14/03/2019, PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT), RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF:- THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN RETAIL TRADING OF INDIAN MADE FOREIGN LIQUOR. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 ON 12/11/2014, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,62,400/- DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SOLD HIS SHARE IN BASTI LAND LOCATED AT 8 AND 8/1/1, GURUDAS DUTTA GARDEN LANE, KOLKATA 700 067, WEST BENGAL. THIS LAND WAS ACQUIRED THROUGH INHERITANCE PRIOR TO 01/04/1981. THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.2,47,73,705/- AFTER REDUCING THE INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION CALCULATED AT RS.4,74,65,645/-, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.2,26,91,940/- WAS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE PRODUCED BY THE 2 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT RS.9,63,42,188/-. ON AN ENQUIRY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT INFORMATION THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH FALLS TO THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS RS.8,67,08,405/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO INVOKE SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND COMPUTE CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING, MARKET VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE, OF RS.8,67,08,405/-, AS DEEMED FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOWCAUSE, PROPOSING TO INVOKE SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS OFFERING AVERAGE OF SALE VALUE AND MARKET VALUE AS PER DEED BEING (RS.1,29,87,592/- + RS.8,67,07,969/-) 2 = RS.4,98,47,780/-. THIS VALUE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE PROPERTY TO THE D.V.O. FOR DETERMINATION OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. THE DVO ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 50C & 55A OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE DVO GAVE A REPORT, VALUING THE PROPERTY. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO, BECAUSE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION, COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAINS OF THE SALE OF PROPERTY BY INVOKING SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, BY DULY SUPPORTING THE SAME WITH THE VALUATION REPORT FROM A REGISTERED GOVERNMENT VALUER DT. 04/05/2016, WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED IN APPEAL THE ISSUE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION U/S 50C OF THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS OF THE PROPERTY. 2.1. THE LD. CIT(A) TOOK ON RECORD THE VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY THE DVO. HE CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT DT. 03/07/2018 FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE EXTRACT CERTAIN PART OF THE REMAND REPORT FOR READY REFERENCE:- 17 AFTER SO MANY MONTHS THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 30/01/2018 IN NS-7 VIDE NOTICE U/S 50C/55A OF THE I. TAX ACT 1961HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DVO ON 23/02/2018 IN WHICH THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 OF THE TOTAL LANDED PROPERTY HAS BEEN DETERMINED AS RS.34,91,036/- AND THE ASSESSEES 9/35 TH SHARE AS RS.8,97,695/- ONLY [COPY ENCLOSED FOR KIND PERUSAL] 18 ON RECEIPT OF SUCH REPORT, THE UNDERSIGNED MADE ANOTHER REQUEST ON 26/02/2018 TO THE DVO TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF SALE/REGISTRATION I.E., 20/02/2014 AS PER THIS OFFICE EARLIER REQUEST LETTER 15/09/2016 WHICH WAS PRAYED BY THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI ASSESSEE IN HIS PRAYER DATED 05/08/2016 AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN INFORMED TO YOUR VIDE THIS OFFICE COMMUNICATION LETTER DATED 30/03/2018 [COPY ENCLOSED FOR KIND PERUSAL.] 19 IN RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 26/02/2018. THE DVO HAS SUBMITTED ANOTHER VALUATION REPORT VIDE A NS-7 DATED 22/03/2018 RECEIVED BY THIS OFFICE ON 02/04/2018 WHERE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON DATE OF SALE / REGISTRATION I.E. 20/02/2014 OF THE TOTAL LANDED PRO PERT) EXCLUDING STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DETERMINED AS RS. 21.76.32.946/- AND THE ASSESSEE'S 9/35 TH SHARE AS RS. 5,59,62,758/- ONLY [COPY ENCLOSED FOR KIND PERUSAL] . 20 ON RECEIPT OF THE FRESH VALUATION REPORT DATED 22/03/2018, AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 24/03/2018 TO THE OVA (COPY ENCLOSED) TO KNOW THE ADOPTING METHODOLOGY AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE WHOLE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REDUCED BY MORE OR LESS 41.91 % IN THE OVA'S REPORT COMPARE TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE ADDL. REGISTRAR OF ASSURANCE -1/KOLKATA [ STAMP DUTY OFFICER J AS FOR SUCH DEVALUATION THE DEPARTMENT HAS GOING TO LOSE THE POTENTIAL REVENUE @ 30% ON RS. 4,03,79,430/- - [ RS. 9,63,42,188/- - RS. 5,59,62,758/-] I.E. TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,21,13,829/- [COPY ENCLOSED FOR YOUR OBSERVATION] IN RESPONSE TO THIS. THE DVO REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 02/05/2018 AGAINST THE SAID OBJECTION WHICH IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AND SELF EXPLANATORY. THEN IN RESPONSE TO THE DVO'S LETTER DATED 02/05/2018 A FRESH OBJECTION DATED 08/0512018 HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE UNDERSIGNED AS THE DVO DETERMINED ONLY THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE TOTAL REFERRED PROPERTY WITHOUT DETERMINING THE FRV OF THE SITUATED STRUCTURE 31,000 SQ. FT. OF SUPER BUILT-UP AREA OF FLAT (SAF) OUT OF TOTAL AREA OF LANDED PROPERTY WITH STRUCTURE AS ON THE DATE OF SALE / REGISTRATION I.E. 20102/2014 ALTHOUGH WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE STAMP DUTY OFFICER SEPARATELY AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION AND THE UNDERSIGNED HAS ALSO MARKED A COPY OF THAT OBJECTION LETTER TO YOUR KIND PERUSAL [COPY ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND OBSERVATION]. BUT SURPRISINGLY THE DVO VIDE LETTER DATED 29/05/2018 INFORMED THAT--- IN REPLY TO YOUR LETTER NO.-43 DATED 08/05/2018, KINDLY REFER TO THIS OFFICE LETTER NO.111 DATED 02/05/2018 ADDRESSED TO YOU WHICH IS SELF EXPLANATORY' - THE COPY OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL AND SELF EXPLANATORY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE UNDERSIGNED IS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT THE COMPREHENSIVE REMAND REPORT BEFORE YOU FOR THE WANT OF PROPER VALUATION REPORT FROM DVO IN RESPECT OF QUESTIONED PROPORTIONATE LANDED PROPERLY WITH STRUCTURE CONSISTING OF LAND AREA OF 12 BIGHA 14 COTTAH 8 CHITTACKS 14 SQ. FT. AND A STRUCTURE 31,000 SQ. FT. HAVING PREMISES NO.-8 &8/1/1, GURUDAS DUTTA GARDEN LANE. KOLKATA-700067. 2.2. A COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS:- NOW THE MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IS, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS AS DISCLOSED BY THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT AS AFORESAID, WHETHER THE A.O. CAN COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN BY INVOKING SECTION 50C(1) OF THE I.T. ACT I.E. BY TAKING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE S.V.A. AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED. NOW IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED A CLAIM BEFORE THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 50C(2) (A) OF THE I.T. ACT THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE S.V.A. UNDER THE SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND ON THE BASIS OF THAT CLAIM THE A.O. HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF SALE UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN SUCH A SITUATION THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE PROVIDED IN SECTION 50C(2) OF THE I. T. ACT IS CLEAR THAT WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE THE PROVISIONS 4 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI OF SUB SECTION (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A CLAUSE (I) OF SUBSECTION ,(1) AND SUBSECTION (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUBSECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND 37 OF THE W.T. ACT. SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATION APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THE W.T. ACT. SECTION 16A(6) WHICH IS ALSO INCORPORATED IN SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT MAKES IS CLEAR THAT ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER UNDER SUB SECTION (3) OR SUBSECTION (5) OF SECTION 16A OF THE W.T. ACT FROM THE VALUATION OFFICER, OF A.O. SHALL SO FAR AS THE VALUATION OF THE ASSET-IN QUESTION IS CONCERNED PROCEEDED TO CONTINUE THE ASSESSMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ESTIMATE OF THE VALUATION OFFICER. FURTHER THE USE OF THE WORD SHALL IN SECTION 50(2) WHILE INCORPORATING THE SECTION OF W.T. ACT IN SECTION 50C(2) AND ALSO IN SUBSECTION (6) OF SECTION 16A OF W.T. ACT MAKES IT MANDATORY FOR THE A.O. TO COMPLY WITH THESE PROVISION OF W.T. ACT ONCE HE MADE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, THEREFORE ONCE A REFERENCE IS MADE UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR VALUATION OF A CAPITAL ASSET ON RAISING A CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 50C(2)(A) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE A.O. IS OBLIGED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER PURSUANT TO SUCH REFERENCE MADE BY HIM. THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE APPELLANT ON THIS POINT IS THE CASE REPORTED IN (2016) 388 ITR 358 AND IN THAT CASE THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT EXACTLY IN A SIMILAR FACTS UPHELD THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPLETE THE CAPITAL GAIN TAKING THE VALUE GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT VALUATION OFFICER. THERE IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE MATTER. A READING OF SECTION 50C(2) MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THIS IS THE SECTION WHICH IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. THIS SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT PROVIDES A SAFEGUARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE SENSE THAT IF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE S.V.A. EXCEEDS FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COME UNDER CLAUSE (B) OF SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, THE A.O. IN THAT EVENT HAS TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND ON SUCH A REFERENCE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE A.O. IN COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE RIGHT OF AN ASSESSEE CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF, THE I,T. ACT IS A VALUABLE STATUTORY RIGHT AVAILABLE TO PROTECT HIS INTEREST AGAINST ANY ARBITRARINESS WHICH MAY CREEP IN WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN AND THAT IS THE SAFEGUARD GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT WAS ON RAISING A CLAIM BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 50C(2)(A)OF THE I.T. ACT THE MATTER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, THEREFORE, THE ONLY STATUTORY SAFEGUARD AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, WHICH CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH MERELY DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS NOT CHOSEN TO PASS ORDER REGARDING VALUATION IN TIME. FURTHER IT IS A BENEFICIAL LEGISLATION ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE WAY IN WHICH THE A.O. HAS PROCEEDED TO COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE PRESENT CASE BY INVOKING SECTION 50C(1) OF THE I.T. ACT AFTER HE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAFEGUARD PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 50C(2) OF THE I.T. ACT AND THE SAME ALSO GOES AGAINST THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND AS SUCH THE SAID ACTION OF THE A.O. CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. FOR THE REASON STATED HEREINBEFORE IT IS HELD THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS COMPUTED BY THE A.O. IN THE PRESENT CASE BY INVOKING SECTION 50C(1) OF THE I.T. ACT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE SAME IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND THE 5 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI SAME NEEDS RECOMPUTATION. ACCORDINGLY A.O. IS DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 20.02.2014 AS DETERMINE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER WHICH AMOUNTS TO RS.5,59,62,758/- . APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 ARE DISPOSE ACCORDINGLY. 2.2.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER PASSED AN ORDER U/S 250 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, ON 04/10/2018 2.3. THE LD. PR. CIT, ISSUED A SHOWCAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 21/02/2019, PROPOSING TO REVISE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT, THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS, AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE LD. PR. CIT ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER CERTAIN ISSUES WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ON 30/12/2016 AND DURING THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER U/S 250/154/144 OF THE ACT ON 04/10/2018 AND THAT THIS RESULTED IN UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE LD. PR. CIT AS TO WHICH IS THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE PROPOSES TO REVISE. THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY ON 04/03/2019. THE LD. PR. CIT, AFTER CONSIDERING THIS REPLY PASSED AN ORDER U/S 263(1) OF THE ACT ON 14/03/2019, WHEREIN HE HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A GRAVE ERROR AND PASSED AN ERRONEOUS ORDER WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BY IGNORING THE VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO REGARDING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.49,47,143/- AND WHEREAS THE DVO HAD VALUED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981 AT RS.8,97,695/- U/S 55A OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ON THE ISSUE OF VALUATION AS ON THE DATE OF SALE. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI R.K. BISWAS, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 14/03/2019 AS BAD IN LAW FOR IT PROPOSED TO REVISE THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 04/10/2018 U/S 250/143(3) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ORIGINALLY PASSED ON 30/12/2016 HAD MERGED WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND HENCE THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NO POWER TO REVISE SUCH AN ORDER. THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 04/10/2018 WAS ONLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. 6 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI CIT(A) AND HENCE THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NO POWER TO REVISE SUCH AN ORDER. FOR THIS PROPOSITIONS HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE-LAW:- CIT V. S. R. A. SYSTEMS LTD. (2019) 410 ITR 392 (MAD.)(HC) PCIT VS. H. NAGARAJA [2018] 406 ITR 242 (KARNATAKA) 4.1. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 WAS CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF SECTION 55(2)(B)(II) OF THE ACT I.E., THE COST OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS TAKEN. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A PLAUSIBLE VIEW, THE LD. PR. CIT COULD NOT REVISE THE ORDER. FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KWALITY STEEL SUPPLIERS COMPLEX [2017] 395 ITR 1 (SC). HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NO CLARITY AS TO WHICH OF THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE REVISED. THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AS THE LD. PR. CIT CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO MAKE A PROPER ENQUIRY OR VERIFICATION REGARDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY PUTTING UP THIS ASPECT TO THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TARLOCHAN DEV SHARMA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [2001] 6 SCC 160 AND SUBMITTED THAT SUCH VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WOULD RENDER THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AS AN ILLEGAL AND HENCE HAS TO BE STRUCK DOWN AS SUCH. HE ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS AND INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS ERRED IN COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRY WHILE DETERMINING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A VALUATION REPORT AND THIS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE VALUE AS REPORTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUE WAS ACCEPTED, WHICH IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS NOT AN ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SAME IN THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 04/10/2018 AND HENCE NO REVISION LIES ON THE SAME. 5. THE LD. D/R, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF REFERRED TO THE ISSUE OF DETERMINATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 TO THE D.V.O. AND THAT HE IS 7 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI BOUND BY THE VALUE FIXED BY THE D.V.O. WHILE AGREEING THAT THE ORDER OF THE DVO WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, HE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THIS VALUE AS GIVEN BY THE DVO AND COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS IN QUESTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY THE D.V.O., BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESULTED IN A GRAVE ERROR WHICH CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A CASE OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE ISSUE OF COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ISSUE OF COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981 WAS NOT A SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS ASPECT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE NOT BEEN VIOLATED IN THIS CASE AND THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAD GIVEN A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLIES OF THE ASSESSEE, HE HAD COME TO CERTAIN CONCLUSIONS ON THIS ISSUE AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE ASSESSEE WAS FREE TO MAKE HIS SUBMISSION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND THAT NO PREJUDICE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT BE UPHELD. 5.1. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHICH IS THE ORDER, THAT THE LD. PR. CIT HAD REVISED AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. PR. CIT DIRECTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE VALUE GIVEN BY THE DVO AND THAT IT WAS NOT AN OPEN REMAND. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ACCEPTED THE VALUE AS GIVEN BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AS ON 01/04/1981 FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS AND THAT THIS WAS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN HELD AS UNTENABLE BY THE LD. PR. CIT AND HENCE THE REVISION DOES NOT LIE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS:- 7. IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250/154/143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS STATED AS FOLLOWS:- 8 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI PARTICULARS AMOUNT SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY (VALUE ADOPTED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS PER SEC 50C) 8,67,08,405/- LESS: INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION: (AS PER RETURN) 4,63,60,206/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PROPERTY 4,03,48,199/- LESS: CLAIM OF 54EC NIL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (SUBJECT TO TAX) 4,03,48,199/- NET ADDITION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN 6,30,40,574/- 7.1. THUS, IN THIS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXERCISE HIS MIND ON THIS ISSUE OF COST OF ACQUISITION BUT HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE TAKEN BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30/12/2016. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DT. 28/08/2018, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF SALE I.E. 20/02/2014 AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO AT RS.5,59,62,758/-. THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), NOR WAS ANY DIRECTION GIVEN ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, THE ISSUE OF COST OF ACQUISITION, WAS ONLY A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/12/2016. A READING OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON 14/03/2019 DOES NOT INDICATE AS TO WHETHER THE LD. PR. CIT REVISED THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30/03/2016 OR THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250/154/143(3) OF THE ACT DT. 04/10/2018. IF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250/154/143(3) OF THE ACT, WAS PROPOSED TO BE REVISED THEN, THE SAME IS HIT BY THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER. THIS ORDER WAS PASSED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. H. NAGARAJA [2018] 406 ITR 242 (KARNATAKA) , AT PARA 20 & 21 HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 20. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ORDER BY FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONSIDERED BOTH THE APPEALS AND IN HIS ORDER DATED 28-03-2013, HAS HELD AFTER EXAMINING THE LEGALITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING UNEXPLAINED INCOME WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER ORDERED FOR DELETION OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS A RESULT THE CONCLUSIONS REGARDING PURCHASE PRICE PAID FOR ACQUIRING THE LANDS AND THE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED BY SELLING THE LANDS STOOD CONCLUDED AS PER THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT MERGED WITH THAT OF 9 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 TO PROCEED TO RE-EXAMINE THE PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE LANDS IN QUESTION. THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER HAD NO JUSTIFICATION TO ADD COST PRICE IN A SUM OF RS. 2,71,13,658/- STATING THAT IT PERTAINED TO SALES MADE FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. HE ALSO ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-EXAMINE THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE LANDS. 21. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COMMISSIONER WHILE EXERCISING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION TANTAMOUNTS TO DIRECTLY INTERFERING WITH THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER. SUCH POWER OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY CANNOT BE CONCEDED TO ENABLE HIM TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER IN VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER. HENCE, IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE REVISIONAL COMMISSIONER ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN PASSING THE SAID ORDER. 8.1. THIS PROPOSITION OF LAW WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. S. R. A. SYSTEMS LTD. (2019) 410 ITR 392 (MAD.)(HC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: MR. T. R. SENTHIL KUMAR, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE STRENUOUSLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, VIDE ORDER DATED MARCH 31, 2005, DID NOT CONSIDER THIS ASPECT AND IN THE REGULAR APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), THE MATTER WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE COMMISSIONER WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT: THIS VERY ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V NIRMA CHEMICAL WORKS (P.) LTD. [2009] 309 ITR 67 (GUJ); [2009] 182 TAXMAN 183 (GUJ), WHEREIN AN IDENTICAL CONTENTION WAS RAISED BY THE REVENUE STATING THAT THE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT COULD BE EXERCISED. THE COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION ON THE FOLLOWING LINES (PAGE 78 OF 309 ITR) : THE CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT REFLECT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AS TO THE ELIGIBILITY OR OTHERWISE UNDER SECTION 80-I OF THE ACT REQUIRES TO BE NOTED TO BE REJECTED. AN ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT 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 EPITOME. THE REASONS ARE NOT FAR TO SEEK. FIRSTLY, IT WOULD CAST AN ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CONSIDERING THE WORKLOAD THAT H 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.' .. THERE IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX TO EXERCISE POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. FOR AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE INTERFERED WITH IN EXERCISE OF -REVISIONAL POWERS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HAS 10 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI TO FIND IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND, SECONDLY, THE ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE CONDITIONS ARE TWIN CONDITIONS AS HELD BY THE APEX COURT AND BOTH OF THEM HAVE TO BE FULFILLED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83 (SC) THE APEX COURT HAS HELD (HEADNOTE) : 'THE PHRASE 'PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF AN ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE 'TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. FOR EXAMPLE; WHEN AN INCOME-TAX OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN LAW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE ; OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE, UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW'.' . IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL CIT V. H. NAGARAJA [2018] 406 ITR 242 (KAM) ; . [2018] 94 TAXMAN.COM 464 (KARN), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT TO PROCEED TO RE-EXAMINE THE PURCHASE MADE BY THEM IN RESPECT OF LANDS -IN QUESTION. THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE COURT AND HELD THAT THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COMMISSIONER, WHILE EXERCISING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION, TANTAMOUNT TO DIRECTLY INTERFERING WITH THE CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND SUCH POWER OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY CANNOT BE CONCEDED TO ENABLE HIM TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER, IN VIEW OF THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER AND THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN PASSING THE SAID ORDER. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS AND FACTUAL POSITION, WE CONCUR WITH THE' VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN HOLDING THAT THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY HAS EXCEEDED IN JURISDICTION IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OR SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT HAS MERGED WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED OCTOBER 25, 2005. 8.2. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE ABOVE CASE LAW TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED U/S 250/154/143(3) OF THE ACT, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVISED BY THE LD. PR. CIT, AS THE DOCTRINE OF MERGER APPLIES. THUS THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS BEYOND JURISDICTION AND HENCE BAD IN LAW. 9. EVEN OTHERWISE, IF THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. D/R IS CONSIDERED AND IT IS ACCEPTED, THAT THE ISSUE OF COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01/04/1981 WAS NOT A MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HENCE NOT PART OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250/154/143(3) OF THE ACT, THEN IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED BY THE LD. PR. CIT WAS IN ORDER PASSED U/S 11 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30/12/2016. IF THIS ORDER IS THAT WHICH IS REVISED, AS THE ISSUE IN QUESTION ARISES THEREIN, THEN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. UNDER SECTION 263 (2) OF THE ACT, AS THE PR. CIT HAS NO POWER TO REVISE AND ORDER AFTER THE EXPIRY OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF INDIRA INDUSTRIES VS. PR. CIT REPORTED IN [2018] 95 TAXMANN.COM 103 (MADRAS) , WHICH APPLIED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD. [2007] 162 TAXAMNN.COM 465 (SC) . 9.1. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS ON 01/04/1981 WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON VALUATION GIVEN BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT, VALUATION IS ONLY AN OPINION. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTS THE OPINION OF A REGISTERED VALUER, THIS VIEW TAKEN IS A PLAUSIBLE VIEW AND HENCE THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER TAKES A PLAUSIBLE VIEW, THE LD. PR. CIT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVISE SUCH AN ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 10. FOR ALL THESE REASONS AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE HOLD THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT, DT. 14/03/2019, IS BAD IN LAW. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE SAME. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 31 ST DAY OF JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- [ S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ] [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31.07.2019 {SC SPS} 12 I.T.A. NO. 1046/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 GIRIJA SHANKAR MAJI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI SANJOY SAHA L/H OF LATE SAMARENDRA NATH SHAW (SINCE DECEASED) C/O, SAMAR 4, GORKEY TERRACE KOLKATA 700 017 (W.B.) 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 11, KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES