Lalit Kumar Bansal, Mohali V. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

ITA 39/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2495 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset converted into stock in trade; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Business income; Revision of order; Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Date of conversion; Fair market value; Assessment record; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 263; 45(2); 143(3); 54B; 50C; 54F; 142(1); 195; 201; 143(2); 54EC; 48; 13

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “ए” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा य एवं ी स ु धांश ु ीवा%तव, या'यक सद%य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM ITA NO. 39/Chd/2021 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Lalit Kumar Bansal H.No. 1708, 382 Phase Mohali The Pr. CIT Chandigarh PAN NO: ! " # Appellant $% # Respondent & ' ( ) Assessee by : Shri R.K. Gupta, C.A * ( ) Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT. D.R + , ( ' - Date of Hearing : 30/03/2022 ./01 ( ' - Date of Pronouncement : 12/05/2022 आदेश/Order PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dt. 21/03/2021 of the Pr. CIT, Chandigarh-1. 2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: The order passed by worthy Pr. CIT is erroneous in law, prejudicial, arbitrary and not in keeping with the facts of the case: 1. That the worthy Pr. CIT is not justified on facts as well as on law in setting aside the original assessment order passed u/s 143(3) on Once an opinion has been formulated then section 263 cannot be invoked to impose a different opinion. The original order passed is neither erroneous nor it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. That the appellant craves, leaves to alter, amend and add to substitute any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the action taken by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30/10/2015 declaring an income of Rs. 3,04,29,420/-, subsequently, the case was 2 selected for scrutiny. The AO mentioned that the assessee furnished the requisite details and documents which were examined and the books of accounts relating to real estate development were examined on test check basis. The AO observed in the assessment order that as per the information available on record and reply submitted by the assessee the case was discussed with the counsel for the assessee and the returned income was accepted. Thereafter the Ld. Pr. CIT exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act and issued the notice dt. 24/02/2020 to the assessee which read as under: Please refer to your return of income filed on 30.10.2015 at an income of Rs.3,04,29,420/- and the assessment order u/s 143(3) passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Mohali (the assessing officer concerned in your case) on 29.12.2017 accepting returned income. 2. Perusal of assessment record in your case for A.Y. 2015-16 shows that a computation of income has been provided during the course of assessment proceedings, it is seen that deduction u/s 54F and 54B of the IT Act have been claimed in respect of four properties. The Agricultural land, as per the computation in respect of two properties was purchased in F. Y. 2004-05 and F. Y. 2005-06 These properties were converted into stock in trade in the F. Y. 2006-07. Accordingly, as on the date of conversion, the transfer of these properties resulted in short term holding and the Capital Gain on these properties was therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act. The wrong claim of deduction has resulted into an erroneous assessment order which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. It is further seen that the said properties were converted into stock in trade during the F.y. 2006-07. Deduction u/s 54F and 54B of the IT Act has been claimed by making investment in the F.Y. 2014-15, which is beyond the period specified as per provision of section 54F and 54B. The wrong claim of deduction as resulted into an erroneous assessment order which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 4. It is further seen from the assessment record that no evidence has been provided as to whether agricultural operations were being carried out on the land converted into stock in trade and during the period immediately before the date of conversion and therefore the claim of deduction u/s 54B without verification of the legal requirement of the section has resulted into an erroneous assessment order which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5 It is further seen from the assessment record that the sale consideration received as declared in the return of income/computation of income for computation of Capital Gain has been accepted without ascertaining the Fair Market Value of the land. This has resulted into allowing deduction without verification of the computation of the capital gain and thus resulted into an erroneous assessment order which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6 In view of the facts stated above, it appears that the assessment framed u/s 143(3) on 29.12.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16 is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. You are, therefore, requested to show cause as to why assessment framed vide assessment order dated 29.12.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y2015-16 3 should not be cancelled by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7. Your case is fixed for hearing before the undersigned on 28.02.2020 at 11:00 A.M. In case of non-compliance, it would be presumed that you have nothing to say in this regard and order u/s 263 would be passed on merits on the basis of material available on record." 4.1 In response to the aforesaid notice, the assessee furnished the written submissions on 05/03/2020 which read as under: 1. There is no denial to the fact that return of income filed on 30.10.2015 at an income of Rs.3,04,29,420/- in respect of assessment year 2015-16 has been accepted at returned income in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T Act, 1961 on 29.12.2017 by Dy. CIT, Circle-6(1), Mohali. 2. It is also a matter of fact that deduction u/s 54B and 54F of the I. T.Act has been claimed in respect of four properties as under: Deduction u/s 54B Property 1 Property II Property III Property IV 3775887/- 2615049/- 7989389/- 2733520/- Deduction u/s 54F Property 1 Property II Property III Property IV 8353482/- 3. The agricultural land, as per the computation of income in respect of two properties stated to be purchased in F. Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 is only for computing the indexation value. However, fact remains that both of these two lands are ancestral agriculture lands. 4. Again, no denial to the fact that these two properties have been converted into stock in trade in F. Y. 2006-07. 5. Now to hold that long term capital gain on sale of these properties read with section 45(2) of the I.TAct, 1961 have not arisen shall be contrary to facts. It is proven with evidence that both these lands are owned by parents. The ownership in the name of assessee has been made in revenue records in the F. Y. 2004-05 & 2005-06 after preparing sale deeds and codal formalities. Therefore, when capital gain is a long term then deduction under section 54F is correct, legitimate and thus neither the assessment order is erroneous not it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue. 6. It has been further alleged that since the said properties were converted into stock in trade during the F. Y. 2006-07 as such deduction u/s 54F and 54B of the I T . Act which has been claimed by making investment in F.Y. 2014-15 is beyond the period specified as per provision of section 54F and 54B. It has been alleged that therefore assessment order is erroneous and have caused prejudice to revenue. It is not correct. The following important points need to be considered in this regard. 4 For similar stock in trade transacted in the F.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 the respective learned AO's only after examination of details on records have passed the assessment orders for respective assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 and have allowed the deductions u/s 54B as well as 54F of the I. T.Act, 1961. Therefore, having following the consistency in A.Y. 2015- 16 under similar facts have neither made the assessment order as erroneous nor it has caused any prejudice to Revenue. Copies of assessment orders, ITRs and Computation Statements of Income both these years are attached at pages Nos. 6 to 23 of this submissions. The Computation Statements of Income of respective years are indicative of similar facts, similar deductions u/s 54B & 54F and duly allowed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Kind attention is invited to case law of Hon'ble IT AT Panji in the case of Deputy commissioner of I. Tax Vs. Ramdas Haribhan Kakade & Ors; ITA No. 60/PUN/2015 assessment year 2010-11 (attached at page nos. 24 to 36 of the submission). The Hon'ble IT AT has categorically held that "transfer envisaged under section 45(2) of the Act, would arise only when stock in trade is sold or otherwise transferred by him and not in the year in which he converted his stock in trade...." Kind attention is also drawn to case law of Hon'ble IT AT Jaipur in the case of Mahendra Rajnikant Zaveri Vs. Income Tax Officer; reported in (2017) 51CCH0028 Jaipur Trib. Head note (attached at page 37 to 46 of the submissions) is very clear to hold that: " Held, sale consideration was received much after due date of filing of return of income which made impossible for assessee to make investment on/before due date of filing of return. On issue of impossibility of performance to invest amount in specified assets within 6 months from date of transfer, CBDT appreciated such situation and clarified that period of 6 months for making investments in specified assets had to be reckoned from date of sale of such stock in trade when right to collect sale consideration in such cases arose, which was much after date of transfer as contemplated for purpose of taxation. Interpretation placed by CBDT in consultation with Ministry of Law to condition of making investment within six months from date of transfer in section 54EC would support claim of assessee. Assessee's appeal allowed." Conclusion: "Period of 6 months for making investments in specified assets had to be reckoned from date of sale of such stock in trade when right to collect sale consideration is such cases arose, which was much after date of transfer as contemplated for purpose of taxation." 1. In fact, A.O. has categorically stated in reasons of complete scrutiny item (Hi) that one of the reasons of complete scrutiny is deduction u/s 54B & 54F of the I.T.Act, 1961 and she has passed the assessment order after duly verifying this deduction. She has formulated her opinion keeping in view the facts, available opinions & have also followed consistency. 7. Having examined once is assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13 as well as that land which hs been converted into stock in trade is agricultural land immediately before conversion into stock in trade and when facts are not changed, the land are same then it is not necessary to keep proof in each & every year to doubt that "IS IT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND" & not evidenced is not warranted. 5 8. It is apparent form statement of computation of income kept on record that value of sale consideration received is the value as per section 50C of the I.Tax Act, 1961. The A.O. has verified it from sale deeds and circle rates notified are fair market value. Thus, to allege that no verification done by A. 0. is contrary to fact. Even the Registering Authority has verified it for the purposes of stamp duty. 9. Last but not the least, even for arising at indexed cost of acquisition, cost inflation index has to be taken for the year under consideration, the year in which sales have actually taken place. The same has also been held by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR Vs. Rudra Industrial Commercial Corporation reported in (2011) 244 CTR 0304: (2011)55 DTR 0005 (attached at page no. 47 to 54 of the submissions). The head note of case law placed at page no. 47 of the submissions states as under: "Capital gains- computation- Relevant date for applying cost inflation index assessee firm which owned an immovable property, converted the same into stock in trade in the year 1987-88 and entered into an agreement with a company to develop the property and construct flats thereon-At that stage Revenue did not treat the said arrangement as a transfer capital gain was computed only when the assessee executed registered sale deeds in favour of the purchasers of flats in the F. Y. 1992-93. It is the market value on the date of transfer that is relevant for computation of capital gains, and for arriving at that market value the prescribed cost inflation index relevant to the date of transfer is to be taken into account and not that on the date of conversion. Therefore, A.O. committed error in taking the cost inflation index of 1987-88 instead of cost inflation index applicable to the F. Y. 1992-93." Under such facts & circumstances, neither the assessment order is erroneous nor it has caused any prejudice to revenue. Hence, the proceedings u/s 263 of the I. T.Act, 1961 may please be filed." 4.2 The assessee furnished the written submissions again on 06/03/2020 which read as under: "This is in continuation to the hearing attended before your good self on 05.03.2020, the desired information in respect of the case is submitted as under: The complete set about the valuation of land to arrive at the Fair Market value of land as assessed by valuer and kept on records of respective AO in the relevant assessment years is attached. Accordingly, of the total sales as reflected in the profit and loss account as per registered sale deeds at CIRCLE RATES (i.e....; section50C of the I.TAct, 1961) amounting to Rs. 15,71,36,378 is worked out for portion lands as under: Property 1: Rs. 13413605/- Property 2 : Rs. 3132190/- Property 3 : Rs. 3132190/- Property 4: Rs. 8268982/- 6 It is pertinent to state that this issue is not the subject matter of dispute even in the preceding assessment year 2013-14 when your worthy predecessor has annulled the original assessment in that relevant year. The return of income for the A. Y. 2007-08 is attached to evident agricultural income of Rs. 50000/- earned from the agricultural lands under consideration." 4.3 Thereafter the Ld. Pr. CIT issued another show cause notices on 21/10/2020 and again on 02/01/2021 which read as under: "Please refer to your return of income filed on 30.10.2015 declaring income of Rs.3,04,29,420/- and the assessment order u/s 143(3) passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Mohali (the assessing officer concerned in your case) on 29.12.2017 accepting returned income. 2. Your case was selected for limited scrutiny and the following issues were identified for examination. i. Interest expenses ii. Sales Turnover Mismatch iii. Sundry Creditors iv. Increase in Capital v. Deduction claimed under the head Capital gains 3. In the questionarire issued on 09.02.2017 vide question No. 11 you were asked to furnish details of substantial increase in capital in a year. However, from the documents submitted by you it is seen that only names of the person from whom loan were received were provided. The identity and credit worthiness of these persons have not been established. No supporting documents have been provided. Accordingly the addition to capital account amounting to Rs. 2,68,78,741/- in the Jamuna Developers and Rs. 2,45,23,486/- in Mehak Enterprises has remained unexplained. Please show cause as to why the addition to the capital account may not be treated as unexplained income and added to your income. 4. Perusal of assessment record in your case for A. Y. 2015-16 shows that a computation of income has been provided during the course of assessment proceedings. It is seen that deduction u/s 54F and 54B of the IT Act have been claimed in respect of four properties. The Agricultural land, as per the computation, in respect of two properties, was purchased in F. Y. 2004-05 and F. Y. 2005-06 These properties were converted into stock in trade in the F. Y. 2006-07. Accordingly, as on the date of conversion, the transfer of these properties resulted in short term holding and the Capital Gain on these properties was therefore not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act. 5. It is further seen that the said properties were converted into stock in trade during the F. Y. 2006-07. Deduction u/s 54F and 54B of the IT Act has been claimed by making investment in the F.Y. 2014-15, which is beyond the period specified as per provision of section 54F and 54B of the I. T. Act. 6. It is also seen from the assessment record that no evidence has been provided as to whether agricultural operations were being carried out on the land converted into stock in trade during the period immediately before the date of conversion and therefore the claim of deduction u/s 54B has been made without supporting documents. 7. From the assessment record it is seen that the sale consideration received as declared in the return of income/computation of income for computation of Capital Gain has been claimed without providing the supporting document. 8. Deduction u/s 54B has been claimed without providing necessary documentary evidence for purchase of Agricultural land. 7 9. Deduction u/s 54F has been claimed without providing necessary documentary evidence for investment in house property and without justifying that the necessary condition u/s 54F are fulfilled. 10. The Agricultural land which was converted in Stock in trade has been sold after construction of flats/Showroom/School. As the assets sold is not agricultural land but flats/Showroom/School sites, it has not been justified as to how the same is eleigible for deduction u/s 54B of the I. T. Act. 11. In view of the facts stated above, it appears that in the assessment proceedings the figures returned by you which were not substantiated with documentary evidence have been accepted without proper investigation and enquiry. Therefore the assessment framed u/s 143(3) on 29.12.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16 is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue in terms of provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. You are, therefore, requested to show cause as to why assessment framed vide assessment order dated 29.12.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A. Y2015-16 should not be cancelled by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 4.4 In response to the aforesaid notices, the assessee furnished the reply which is reproduced verbatim as under: ''This is with reference to aforesaid notice pertaining to assessment year 2015-16regarding proceeding u/s 263. In this regard, it is stated as under: Part-I i) Addition in Capital A/c in M/s Jamuna Developers amounting to Rs.2,68,78,741/-. The detail of the addition stands verified by then Ld. A.O. and how it isnot found on assessment record is really a matter of surprise to us. However, for your immediate reference and record, the detail of addition in capital account of Rs. 26878741/- is furnished as under: Date Amount Remarks 28-05-2014 3573297.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-7238 29-05-2014 500000.00 From Saving A/c No. SBI-3109 29-05-2014 1000000.00 From Saving A/c No. SBI-3109 30-06-2014 750200.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-7238 22-07-2014 1000000.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-1315 11-08-2014 260500.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-7238 30-09-2014 562070.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-1315 22-10-2014 12080.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-7238 21-11-2014 2820.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-7238 04-12-2014 725150.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-1315 05-12-2014 37000.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-7238 07-12-2014 2500000.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-7238 03-01-2015 8918.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-1315 10-01-2015 3000000.00 From Saving A/c No. SBI-3109 10-01-2015 3950000.00 From Saving A/c No. SBI-3109 22-01-2015 71902.00 Through credit card for vehicle expenses 04-02-2015 8918.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-1315 16-02-2015 15886.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-1315 28-02-2015 100000.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB -001 30-03-2015 8500000.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-7238 31-03-2015 300000.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB-7238 8 All these transactions have routed through bank account. The bankstatements are attached for your immediate reference and record asan annexure A, A1, A2, A3 respectively. ii) Addition in Capital in Mehak Enterprises Amounting to Rs.24523486/- Similar are the facts in this case also. The detail of addition is as under: Date Amount Remarks 04.10.2014 200841.00 From Saving A/c No. SBI3109 07.11.2014 900000.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB 7238 07.11.2014 150000.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB 7238 15.11.2014 5000.00 TDS through assessee 01.12.2014 5000.00 Cash 30.12.2014 13381645.00 Land transferred to Mehak Enterprises at cost. The papers of land are attached as annexure B. 16.01.2015 1100000.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB 7238 21.01.2015 25000.00 From Saving A/c No. SBI 3109 31.01.2015 10000.00 Cash 07.02.2015 44000.00 TDS through assessee 07.02.2015 2000.00 TDS through assessee 30.03.2015 8700000.00 From Saving A/c No. BOB 7238 Having seen the credits in Capital Account through explained transactions from Bank, the then A. 0 has not questioned such addition. So in this part, there is no addition which is unexplained. Hence, neither any prejudice nor any mistake during assessment. Even if, your goodself arrive at, that mistake is there for having not verified the additions (as there is no material on assessment record), your goodself will appreciate from the detail submitted now that there is not even a single entry the source of which is not explained now. Hence, no prejudice to revenue. Part II For other details on account of deduction u/s 54F & 54B on capital gainsearned by the assessee. For this the proceedings u/s 263 were initiated by your Ld. Predecessor. All the detail about no mistake and no loss to revenue on account of thesedeductions stands filed. These are enclosed once again for yourimmediate reference and record as Annexure 'C1, 'C2’ '03' & Annexure 'D' respectively. Conclusion It is submitted that assessment order passed by Ld. A.O. is neither erroneous nor it has caused any prejudice to Revenue. Therefore, proceedings initiated u/s 263 of the I. Tax Act, 1961 may please be filed. 4.5 The Ld. Pr. CIT after considering the reply / submissions of the assessee observed that the view taken by her was based upon independent perception of the assessment record. She further observed that the increase in capital was one of the issue identified for examination as there was substantial increase in the capital account and the assessment was framed by the AO without examining the issue. She further observed that the assessee furnished copy of bank account from where the capital was stated to have been introduced which revealed that immediate before the withdrawal / transfer 9 there were credit entries of large amount and the source of credit entries in those account remained to be examined. Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view that the order passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the following inquiries / verification were not conducted by the AO: 1. The details of addition to capital account were not called for. 2. In the Bank account statements there are credit entries just before the transfer in capital account. The Credit entries in the Bank account of the assessee from where the capital is stated to have been introduced were not subjected to verification. 3. There are certain entries which have narration different to what is being claimed by the assessee and these were not subjected to verification/examination. 4. The ownership of land as on date of introduction to Mehak Enterprise was not verified from Revenue Record. 4.6 As regards to the claim for deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act was concerned the Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the details of capital gain disclosed by the assessee in the computation of income filed during the assessment proceedings were as under: Property No. 1 Property No.2 Property No. 3 Property No.4 Year of purchase (as claimed by assessee) F.Y.2004-05 F.Y.2002-03 F.Y. 1981-82 F.Y.2005-06 Purchase cost with indexation 12,84,235 5,17,141 2,79,593 3,98,670 Sale consideration (as declared by the assessee) 1,34,13,604 31,32,190 82,68,982 31,32,190 Capital gain declared 1,21,29,369 26,15,049 79,89,389 27,33,520 Deduction U/S54B 37,75,887 26,15,049 79,89,389 27,33,520 Deduction u/s54F 83,53,482 NIL NIL NIL On the basis of the aforesaid details, the Ld. Pr. CIT observed that the two properties which were purchased by the assessee in the F.Y. 2004-05 and 2005-06 were converted into stock in trade in FY 2006-07, thus, on the date of conversion the gain arising from those properties was Short Term Capital Gain (STCG). As such the assessee was not eligible for deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act. Ld. Pr. CIT was of the view the AO failed to examine the claim of the assessee and had issued a erroneous order in allowing deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act on these properties. On the contrary the claim of the assessee was that those two properties were ancestral land and the ownership was in the name of the assessee was transferred in the F.Y 2004-05 and 2005-06 therefore the capital gain was Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and deduction under section 54F was rightly claimed. The assessee also claimed that the land at Sl. No. 3 was ancestral, the evidence of land being used for agriculture 10 purposes was also furnished. The Ld. Pr. CIT on the other hand observed that even if these were ancestral property the claim was contrary to facts emerging from the sale deed and that the value was to be taken in the year 1981-82 and not in the year when these had been transferred in the name of the assessee, therefore, the order issued by the AO was not only erroneous but had been issued without examination of any facts. 4.7 The Ld. Pr. CIT held that the order passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the following inquiries / verifications were not conducted by the AO: 1. The date of purchase of properties has been accepted without verification of facts even from the assessee inspite of the fact that the case was picked up under scrutiny for this specific reason. 2. The value of capital gain disclosed by the assessee was accepted without verification of the fact that the transaction was short term capital gain or long term gain. 3. That the value of the property in the purchase year has been accepted without obtaining relevant sale deed to verify the year of purchase and the amount for which purchased. 4. If the property is ancestral then the indexed cost of acquition as declared by the assessee is not correct as the indexation has been claimed as per value of F.Y.2004-05 and 2005-06 and in which case provisions of section 49 will apply i.e as the property did not cost anything to the inheritor, therefore, for calculation of capital gain the cost to the previous owner is considered as the cost of acquisition of the property and the year of acquisition of the previous owner is considered for the purpose of indexation of the cost of acquisition along with the year of sale of the property. These inquiries/ verification were not conducted by the Assessing Officer. 5. It has not been examined that holding of certain land which have been sold is less than 36 months and therefore were not eligible for benefit of section 54B and 54 F but still the same has been given. 6. The collector rate should have been taken as the FMV on the date of conversion but the assessee has taken sale consideration for which there is no basis or documentary evidence. 4.8 The Ld. Pr. CIT while considering the assessment order passed by the AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue also observed in para 10.5.4 to 10.13 of the impugned order as under; 10.5.4 The provisions of section 54Fare thus clear and unambiguous. It provides that the assessee has, within a period of one year before or [two years] after the date on which the transfer took place purchased, or has within a period of three years after that date constructed, a residential house. Transfer has been defined in section 2(47) which is the date on which the asset is converted in stock in trade. Nowhere does the section 54 F provide for any exceptional treatment in view of provision of section 45(2). Similar is the position in case of deduction u/s54B of the Income Tax Act. 11 10.6 The investment in agricultural land and house has been made in the F.Y.2014-15 whereas the land was transferred in the F.Y.2006-07. The assessee has thus not complied with the provision of section 54B and 54 F as discussed above. Accordingly the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s54B and 54 F of the Income Tax Act. 10.7 There is another aspect regarding deduction u/s54B of the Income Tax Act. As per the provisions of the section 54B for claiming deduction u/s54B the land should have been used for agricultural purpose in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place. The Assessing officer has made no inquiry from the Revenue Authorities to verify as to whether the land was being used for agricultural purpose in the immediate preceding two years. The claim was thus allowed without verification and inquiries. 10.8 There is one more aspect regarding deduction u/s54B of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has claimed and was allowed deduction u/s54 B of the Income tax Act by the Assessing Officer without examining the fact that after converting the land in Stock in trade, the assessee constructed Residential Flats/ Commercial sites/ School on that land. What was ultimately sold was not agricultural land but the Residential Flats/ Commercial sites/ School. As the assessee did not actually sell the agricultural land the provisions of section 54 B were not applicable and thus no deduction u/s54B was allowable to the assessee on sale of Residential Flats/ Commercial sites/ School. 10.9 The claim of deduction u/s54 F was allowed without calling for the details of investment made in construction of house. In the reply dated 12/06/2017, the assessee has merely stated that he has invested Rs.96,37,71II- in construction of house. No verification was made by the Assessing Officer on this issue. Bank statement from where payments for construction was made were not called for. Bills for construction were not called for or examined. 10.10 The assessee in the reply has also relied on Mahendra Rajnikant Zaveri Vs. Income Tax Officer (para 10.3 above). The decision is primarily based on circular No.791 of dated 02/06/2000. The decision has been considered. It is however seen that the circular is about the investment made in "specified assets" for claiming deduction u/s 54 E of the Act. The scheme of each section for deductions is separate and has to be strictly construed. Since the circular is in the context of 54 E it is applicable in respect of claim made under the said section. A circular issued under a different section cannot override the statutory provision whose terms and language are plain and unambigous. 10.11 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI [1998 (2) SCC 299] has held as under:- "It has to be reiterated that the object of interpretation of a statute is to discover the intention of Parliament as expressed in the Act. The dominant purpose in construing a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature as expressed in the statute, considering it as a whole and in its context that intention, and therefore, the meaning of the statute, is primarily to be sought in the words used in the statute itself, which must, if they are plain and unambiguous be applied as they stand" The object of all interpretation is to discover the intention of Parliament, but the intention of Parliament must be deduced from the language used." 10.12 In M/S. Gem Granites vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal (civil) 319 of 2004), Hon'ble Apex court has held as under:- "An argument founded on what is claimed to be the intention of Parliament may have appeal but a Court of law has to gather the object of the Statute from the language used. What one may believe or think to be the intention of Parliament cannot prevail if the language of the Statute does not support that view." 10.13 One of the reasons for selection of the case for scrutiny was "deduction claimed under the head capital gain". The Assessing office allowed the deductions claimed u/s54F 12 and 54B without examining the facts and without any verification as mentioned in preceding paras. The Order passed by the Assessing Officer is therefore erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as the no inquiries/ verifications were conducted by the Assessing Officer in allowing deduction claimed u/s54B and 54F of the Income Tax Act as discussed above. 4.9 The Ld. Pr. CIT observed that as per the sale deed dt. 26/12/2006 the collector rate of the land was Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre and for calculating the capital gain arising from the sale of stock as per the provisions of Section 45(2) of the Act and that for the purpose of section 48 of the Act, the fair market value of the asset on the date of conversion shall be deemed to be full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. She further observed that the assessee while computing the capital gain had adopted sale consideration for which no documentary evidence was provided and the AO did not make any verification or inquiry in this regard, therefore, the sale consideration over and above the fair market value as in the year of conversion shall be treated as business income of the assessee. She mentioned that the collector rate of the land in the year of conversion i.e; F.Y. 2006- 07 was Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre and accordingly the fair market value of the land now sold as stock in trade should have been worked out for the F.Y. 2006-07 which would be much less than what had been claimed by the assessee in the computation of income, the difference has to be taxed as business income but the AO made no inquiry on this aspect. She, therefore held that the order passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Ld. Pr. CIT also mentioned that the investment made in residential property under section 54F was less than net consideration in respect of capital asset transferred, therefore, the proportionate deduction in terms of provision of section 54F of the Act was to be allowed but the capital gain under section 54F of the Act had been wrongly calculated by the assessee as the capital gain already claimed exempt under section 54B on account of purchase of agriculture land had not been deducted. Therefore, the assessment made by the AO was erroneous so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The reference was made to the following case laws: • CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee [2012] 341 ITR 434 (Gauhati)(HC)(FB) • Anil Kumar Vs. ACIT [2005] 147 Taxman 5 (Mag.)(Delhi)(Trib) • Super Cloth Vs. ACIT [2006] 99 ITD 300 (Chennai)(Trib) • Rampyari Devi Saraogi Vs. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) 13 • ITO Vs. DG Housing Projects Limited (2012) 343 ITR 329(Del) • Gee Vee Enterprises Vs. Add. CIT, [1975] 99 ITR 375 (Del) • CIT Vs. Emery Stone Manufacturing Company,213 ITR 843 (Raj) • CIT Vs. Jawahar Bhattacharjee, 341 ITR 434 (Gau) • Simran Farms Ltd. Vs. CIT, 300 ITR 270 (M.P) • Nagesh Knitwear Pvt. Ltd. [2012] 345 ITR 135 (Del) • Dr. P.N. Bhaskaran Vs. CIT [TS-333-HC-2018 (KER)] 4.10 The Ld. Pr. CIT held that the failure of the AO to make inquiry / verification to arrive at the correct and complete fact and to apply the correct law makes the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. She therefore cancelled the assessment order dt. 29/12/2017 for the A.Y 2015-16 under section 143(3) of the Act with a direction to the AO to pass the order afresh in accordance with law after allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that the Ld. Pr. CIT while invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act considered the two issues, one issue was relating to the substantial increase in capital account of the assessee in M/s Jamuna Developers and M/s Mehak Enterprises and the another issue related to the claim of deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act. It was stated that the Ld. Pr. CIT while issuing the notice dt. 24/02/2020 did not touch the issue relating to increase in capital and only mentioned the issue relating to the deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act, a reference was made to page no. 2 of the impugned order wherein the notice issued under section 263 of the Act by the Ld. Pr. CIT has been reproduced. 6.1 It was further submitted that another notice dt. 02/01/2021 was issued to the assessee wherein the addition to the capital account amounting to Rs. 2,68,78,741/- in M/s Jamuna Developers and R.s 2,45,23,486/- in M/s Mehak Enterprises were raised by the Ld. Pr. CIT and the assessee duly explained both issues to the Ld. Pr. CIT alongwith relevant evidences. It was contended that there was change in opinion of the Ld. Pr. CIT who in the first notice raised the question relating to the exemption under section 54B and 54F of the Act and later on she asked about the increase in capital account. It 14 was stated that the Ld. Pr. CIT in one notice observed that the assessee had not furnished a requisite information / evidence before the AO in another notice she observed that the AO had not inquired properly, so, she was not sure as to whether the assessee furnished all the information and documents before the AO or the proper inquiries were not made by the AO. It was submitted that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny and the AO issued the questionnaire on 27/04/2015 copy of which is placed at page no. 7 to 9 of the assessee’s compilation. It was contended that the AO vide Question no. 12 specifically asked about the details of movable and immovable assets and LTCG/STCG earned during the relevant period. He also asked the details of all the business concern associated with the assessee and the complete details of the bank account vide Question no. 5 & 6 of the Questionnaire. It was stated that the assessee furnished the details before the AO who examined the same thoroughly. 6.2 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention towards page no. 193 of the assessee’s paper book which is the copy of the notice dt. 19/09/2016 issued by the AO under section 143(2) of the Act for limited scrutiny and wherein following issues were identified for examination: i. Interest expenses ii. Sales Turnover Mismatch iii. Sundry Creditors iv. Increase in Capital v. Deduction claimed under the head Capital Gains Our attention was also drawn towards page no. 195 and 196 of the assessee’s paper book which is the copy of the letter dt. 09/02/2017 issued by the AO for furnishing the information with respect to assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, in the said letter, item No. 8 related to details of large deduction claimed under section 54B & 54C etc. and vide item No. 11 the AO asked the assessee to furnish the details of substantial increase in capital in the year. It was submitted that the assessee furnished the details relating to the addition in the capital account copy of which is placed at page no. 199 to 200 of the assesse’s paper book which are the copies of the assessee’s account in M/s Mehak Enterprises and M/s Jamuna Developers and the increase in capital was on account of amount received from those two concerns. It was contended that the AO after examining the details furnished by the assessee and making the proper inquiries, accepted the same and income, was 15 assessed at the returned income, a reference was made to copy of the assessment order dt. 29/12/2017 placed at page no. 201 and 202 wherein the AO mentioned as under: “ the case was discussed with the counsel of the assessee as per the information available on record and reply submitted by the assessee, the returned income of the assessee is hereby accepted” 6.3 The Ld. Counsel of the Assessee also drew our attention towards page no. 203 of the assessee’s compilation which in the copy of the office note in assesse’s case wherein the AO vide item no. 3 clearly mentioned that this case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for large deduction claimed under section 54B, 54C etc. vide Item No. 6 she mentioned that the reason for complete scrutiny was substantial increase in capital in the year and that during the course of assessment proceedings the requisite documents were called for and examined, no adverse inference was drawn. He therefore submitted that the assessee furnished all the documents which were asked by the AO who thoroughly examined the same and made the proper inquiries therefore it was neither the case of lack of inquiry or nor of improper inquiries. 6.4 Ld. Counsel for the assessee made reference to page no. 157 to 180 of the assessee’s paper book which are the copies of capital account of the assessee for the period relevant to the assessment year under consideration in the firm M/s Mehak Enterprises and M/s Jamuna Developers, bank statements of assessee in the Bank of Baroda and State Bank of India, purchase deed of agriculture land at Nimbua dt. 17/01/2011. It was stated that the assessee introduced the capital from his own bank account maintained with State Bank of India and Bank of Baroda and all the entries relating to the increase in capital were fully explained to the Ld. Pr. CIT, so, there was nothing which could establish that the order passed by the AO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 6.5 It was submitted that the evidence for addition in capital account amounting to Rs. 1,33,81,545/- by introduction of land in M/s Mehak Enterprises are placed at page no. 176 to 180 of the assessee’s paper book which clearly established that the owner of the land was the assessee and none other therefore the action of the Ld. Pr. CIT was unlawful and uncalled for, as there was change in opinion from one notice by earlier 16 PCIT to second notice by the present PCIT, the earlier one was satisfied while the second one was not satisfied on the issue relating to the increase in capital. 6.6 It was further stated that the Ld. PCIT observed that the addition in capital account was from the person whose identity and credit worthiness was not examined, it was emphaiszed that the addition in capital account was by the assessee himself being Proprietor of the Firm and there was no unsecured loan from any other person. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to page no. 157 to 159 of the assessee’s paper book and submitted that the allegation of the Ld. Pr. CIT was incorrect with regard to mistake in the bank statement vis a vis capital account. It was further submitted that the addition of land in the firm M/s Mehak Enterprises was stated to be not examined and verified by the AO from the Revenue record was a vague query as the sale deed was very much on the record of the same value and even the deduction under section 54B of the Act was claimed and allowed in the A.Y. 2011-12, therefore, the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) relating to the increase in capital of the assessee was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, has no legs to stand. 7. As regards to the another issue relating to the deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act was concerned, it was stated that under similar facts the then respective AO’s had allowed deduction of the agriculture land converted into stock in trade in the A.Y’s. 2011-12 and 2012-13 and even for the preceding A.Y. 2013-14 when the Ld. Pr. CIT passed the order under section 263 of the Act the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by the ITAT and the order passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 was annulled. It was also pointed out that in the succeeding A.Y 2018-19 under the faceless scrutiny the AO again allowed the deduction under section 54B & 54F of the Act, the reference was made to page no. 181 and 182 of the assessee’s compilation which is the copy of the assessment order for the A.Y 2018-19. 7.1 It was submitted that facts for the year under consideration are similar to the facts involved in the A.Y’s. 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2018-19 therefore, the second issue relating to the deductions claimed under section 54B and 54F of the Act, which was considered to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by the Ld. Pr. CIT stands covered in favour of the assessee vide order dt. 08/07/2021 of the ITAT Chandigarh Bench “A”, Chandigarh in ITA No. 415/Chd/2018 for the A.Y. 2013-14 in 17 assessee’s own case, copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record. It was accordingly submitted that the order was passed by the AO after making proper examination and making enquiries so, it was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue as alleged by the Ld. Pr. CIT. 8. In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT DR reiterated the observations made by the Pr. CIT and further submitted that the assessee did not furnish any details relating to the persons from whom unsecured loans were received and only names were given but there were no addresses, so it was a lack of inquiry at the part of the AO and the Ld. PCIT was fully justified in directing the AO to make proper inquiry and thereafter decide the issue relating to increase in capital. 8.1 As regards to the issue relating to deductions claimed u/s 54B & 54F of the Act on account of the Long Term Capital Gain, it was stated that the same was required to be denied as no evidence was furnished for the year under consideration. 8.2 The Ld. CIT DR reiterated the observations made by the Ld. PCIT in para 9.4 of the impugned order and strongly supported the same. It was submitted that the order passed by the AO was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, therefore, the Ld. Pr. CIT rightly exercised her power by invoking the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment framed by the AO without making proper inquiries. 9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused he material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the Ld. PrCIT while issuing the notice under section 263 of the Act on 24/02/2020 asked the assessee about the deduction claimed under section 54F and 54B of the Act. Thereafter another notice was issued on 21/10/2020 and again on 02/01/2021 wherein another issue was raised relating to the addition of capital account in the Firm M/s Jamuna Developers amounting to Rs. 2,68,78,741/- and in M/s Mehak Enterprises amounting to Rs. 2,45,23,486/-. As regards to the issue relating to the addition in capital account in M/s Jamuna Developers amounting to Rs. 2,68,78,741/- it is noticed that the amount was received from Saving Bank account maintained with Bank of Baroda and State Bank of India. The relevant details had been mentioned by the Ld. Pr. CIT at page no. 9 & 10 of 18 the impugned order. The addition amounting to Rs. 2,45,23,486/- in M/s Mehak Enterprises was from the Saving Bank Account maintained with Bank of Baroda and State Bank of India and Rs. 1,33,81,645/- was on account of land transferred at cost on 30/12/2014. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued the Questionnaire vide notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued on 09/02/2017 and the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny only to examine the increase in capital, the assessee furnished the details to the AO copy of which is placed at page no. 157 to 159 of the assessee’s paper book for increase in capital in the firm M/s Mehak Enterprises. The assessee also furnished the copy of bank account wherein the entries were reflected for depositing the amount in M/s Mehak Enterprises in the capital account of the assessee, the copy of the same is placed at page no. 160 to 171 for Bank of Baroda and at page nos. 172 to 175 for State Bank of India. The AO verified those details which is evident from the assessment order wherein it has been mentioned that Shri Sudeep Gupta, C.A attended the assessment proceedings from time to time on behalf of the assessee and furnished the requisite details and documents which were examined. The AO also mentioned that the assessee was in the business of Real Estate Development, bank accounts were called for and examined on test check. Even in the office note copy of which is placed at page no. 203 of the assessee’s paper book, the AO specifically mentioned that the case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS with the following reasons: 1. “ Higher turnover reported in Service Tax Return as compared to ITR”. 2. “Large increase in Sundry creditors with respect to Turnover as compared to preceding year.” 3. “Large deduction claimed u/s 54B, 54C, 54C, 54G, 54GA”. 4. “Mismatch in sales reported in Audit and ITR.” 5. “High interest expenditure against new capital added in work in progress or addition made to fixed assets.” 6. “Substantial increase in capital in a year.” In the aforesaid office note, it is specifically mentioned at Sl.No. 3 & 6 that the case were selected for scrutiny for the reason that there were large deductions claimed under section 54B, 54C, 54G, 54GA of the Act and substantial increase in capital in a year. In the present case, copy of notice under section 143(2) of the Act is 19 placed at page no. 193 of the assessee’s compilation wherein it is specifically mentioned that following issues have been identified for examination: i. Interest expenses ii. Sales Turnover Mismatch iii. Sundry Creditors iv. Increase in Capital v. Deduction claimed under the head Capital Gains From the aforesaid notice it is crystal clear that increase in capital as well as deduction claimed under the head capital gain were the issues identified for limited scrutiny for examination. The AO again directed the assessee to furnish the information during the course of assessment proceedings vide letter dt. 09/02/2017, copy of which is placed at page no. 195 and 196 of the assessee’s compilation, in the said letter, at Sl.No. 8 the AO asked the information relating to large deduction claimed under section 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA of the Act and at Sl. No. 11 the AO asked the details of substantial increase in capital in a year. The assessee furnished all the requisite details which we have already mentioned in the former part of this order, so it cannot be said that the AO did not make the inquiries relating to the increase in capital account or did not examine the issues. In the present case the Ld. Pr. CIT on the one hand mentioned that the assessee did not provide details of substantial increase in capital in a year, on the other hand, she mentioned that the reply was furnished by the assessee relating to addition in capital account which was reproduced in para 6 of the impugned order. In the present case, it cannot be said that the AO did not make inquiries / verification relating to increase in capital account of the assessee as alleged by the Ld. Pr. CIT. 9.1 As regards to the certain entries which the Ld. Pr. CIT pointed at page no. 12 & 13 of the impugned order that there was mismatch, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his written synopsis clarified that those entries were verifiable from the records and the assessee himself introduced addition in capital from his own bank account maintained with SBI Saving Bank Account 3109, Bank of Baroda Saving Bank Account 7238 and 3109. As regards to the mismatch pointed out by the Ld. Pr. CIT the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee had given the explanation as under: 20 S.No. Page of 263 order As per PCIT Facts 1. 12 Amount Rs.2000841/- Amount is Rs.200841/- kindly refer P.No. 157 of paper book and entry in Bank is at page 161 of paper book. 2. 12 Amount Rs.725150/- in favour of Globe Auto. Entry in SBI 3109 is at page 161 of paper book. Debit Globe Auto in books of Jamuna Developers & Credit Capital A/c. 3. 13 Amount Rs.750200/- & as per PCIT Bank is BOB-7328 Account is BOB 7238 and not 7328 and entry is at page 167 of paper book. 4. 13 Amount Rs.260500/- & as per PCIT Bank is BOB 7328 Account is BOB 7238 and not 7328 and entry is at page 168 of paper book. Entry is Dr. UltraTech by credit to Capital Account 5. 13 Amount Rs. 15 00 00/-BOB 7328 no such entry in Bank Account is BOB 7238 and 7328 and entry is at page 169 of paper book. In the present case when the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for a specific issue relating to increase in capital account and the AO asked the information and details for the said issue, the assessee furnished the relevant details which were examined by the AO who did not find any adversity or default in those details, so it cannot be said that the order passed by the AO was erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the issue relating to the increase in capital account of the assessee. 9.2 As regards to the another issue relating to the deductions claimed under section 54B and 54F of the Act it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts was also a subject matter of the assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14 wherein the Ld. Pr. CIT, Chandigarh also invoked the provisions of Section 263 of the Act and this Bench of the ITAT in ITA No. 415/Chd/2018while adjudicating the issue held vide order dated 08/07/2021in para 10 to 13 as under: 10. So far as the issue regarding claim of deduction u/s 54B & 54F of the Act is concerned, as per the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Sh. Ramdas Haribhau Kakade (supra), assessee’s entitlement for claiming deduction u/s 54B(1) and 54(B)(2) of the Act would be seen in the year in which the deemed transfer is to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. Further, the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case Mahendra Rajnikant Zaveri (supra), in the light of the CBDT Circular No 791 dated 02.06.2000 and taking into consideration the impossibility of the assessee being able to invest the amount, has held that the period of 6 months for the purposes of investment in specified assets must be reckoned from the date of receipt of consideration. So, we are of the considered view that since the AO had taken a possible view after hearing the assessee in the light of the cases relied upon by the assessee, the Ld. PCIT has wrongly exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act and set aside the assessment order. 11. Further as per the settled law u/s 263 of the Act, the CIT has power to examine an assessment order to ascertain as to whether it is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Section 263 of the Act does not confer jurisdiction to rectify each and every mistake in the assessment order. Therefore, the assessment order can be revised only where the order is erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and not for rectification of mistakes in the order. 12. So far as the applicability of clause (a) of Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act is concerned, as pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal has held in the case of 21 Brahma Centre Development Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 434& 4342/Del/2019, has held that Explanation 2 to section 263 of the Act is prospective in nature, therefore not applicable to the present case. 13. In the light of the facts of this case and the cases discussed above, we are of the considered view that in the present case, since the AO had passed the assessment order after making enquiries and had taken a possible view consistent with the stand of the department in assessee’s own cases for the preceding assessment years 2012-13 and 2011-12 and subsequent assessment year 2018-19, the Ld. PCIT has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, wrongly holding the assessment order passed by the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Hence, we allow the appeal of the assessee and set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. PCIT. 9.3 Since the facts for the year under consideration are identical to the facts involved for the A.Y. 2013-14 wherein in similar circumstances the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Act was quashed. We, therefore, are of the view that the Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified in holding that the assessment order passed by the AO for the year under consideration was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on the issue relating to the deduction under section 54B and 54F of the Act. In that view of the matter and by considering the totality of the facts as discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that the Ld. Pr. CIT was not justified in holding that the assessment order dt. 29/12/2017 passed by the AO was erroneous in so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, accordingly the impugned order of the Ld. Pr. CIT is quashed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 12/05/2022 ) Sd/- Sd/- स ु धांश ु ीवा%तव एन.के.सैनी, (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ( N.K. SAINI) या'यक सद%य/ JUDICIAL MEMBER उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT AG Date: 12/05/2022 / 2 ( $ '3 4 5 4 ' Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. # The Appellant 2. $% # The Respondent 3. + 6' CIT 4. + 6' 7 8 The CIT(A) 5. 4 9 ग $ ' ; < - ; < =>? ग@ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. ग ? A , Guard File