, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND AMIT SHUKLA, (JM) . . , , ./ I.T. A. NO. 5058 / MUM/20 10 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 6 - 07 ) SMT.BIMLA DEVI D SHAH, 301, JAIN APARTMENT, MAMLEDAR WADI, MALAD (W), MUMBAI - 4000 64 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 24(1)(3), MUMBAI - 400020 . ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AYSPS6957Q / A SSESSEES BY MS. SHLOKA JAIN / RE VENUE BY SHRI S J SINGH / DATE OF HEARING : 2 6 .3 . 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 6 .3. 201 5 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN (AM) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE REVISION ORDER DATED 24. 11 .2009 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 24, MUMBAI AND IT RELATES T O THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE REVISION ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT ) . 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT ON 15.2.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I.T.A. NO. 5058 / MUM/201 0 2 NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.18.25 LAKHS ON 24.3.2006 AND THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING THERE FROM WAS DECLARED AS NIL IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO CALLED FOR THE DETAILS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS , BUT DID NOT EXAMINE THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54 OF THE ACT . THE COMMISSIONER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT I N RESPECT OF THREE DIFFERENT FLATS PURCHASED ON 19.5.2002, 15.3.2005 AND 30.9.2004 . SINCE, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR DID THE AO MA K E A NY INQUIRY WITH REGARD TO EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54 OF THE ACT , THE COMMISSIONER INITIATED REVISION PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE , HE SET ASIDE THE ASSES S M ENT OR DER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT BY DULY VERIFYING ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND ALSO AFTER AFFORDING NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 . FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSE E , WE NOTICE THA T THE AO HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION THAT SHE IS CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. SINCE , THERE IS NO INQUIRY AT ALL ON THE PART OF THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESS MENT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WE FIND SUPPORT FOR THIS PROPOSITION FROM THE DECI SION RENDERED BY T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA S E OF M/S MALABAR HILLS MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83(SC). ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE SAME. I.T.A. NO. 5058 / MUM/201 0 3 5. IN THE RESULT, T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE AB OVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26TH MARCH, 2015 . 26TH MARCH, 2015 S D SD ( / AMIT SHUKLA ) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 26TH MARCH,2015 . . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, T RUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , /ITAT, MUMBAI