KAMALA CHANDRAKAR, DURG,DURG V. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 215/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kamala Chandrakar, who appealed against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, which set aside her assessment for the assessment year 2012-13. The original assessment had accepted her declared Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from the sale of agricultural land, but the Pr. CIT later found discrepancies in the claimed deductions and the purchase cost of the land. The Tribunal examined whether the Pr. CIT's order under section 263 was justified and whether the reassessment by the Assessing Officer was within jurisdiction and correctly applied the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35702 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. Vs CIT, Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. Income-tax Officer, Assam Tea House Vs CIT, Jagdish Kumar Gulati Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Apollo Tyres Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains; Assessment record; Revision of order; Prejudicial to interest
• Section: 148; 144; 143(3); 263; 54B; 50C

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.215/RPR/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kamala Chandrakar Motipara-Durg, Durg (C.G.)-491 001 PAN: AGDPC0746L .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravi Agrawal, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 03.09.2024 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 21.11.2024 2 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (for short ‘Pr. CIT’), dated 21.03.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.144 r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 29.03.2022 for the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1) The order passed u/s 263 is contrary to law, illegal, unsustainable and is passed without properly appreciating the facts of the case. 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income, Raipur-1 u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 setting aside the assessment framed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is without jurisdiction and bad in law, and therefore, is liable to be quashed. 3) The appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed her return of income for A.Y.2012-13 on 31.03.2013, declaring an income of Rs.1,76,470/- a/w. agricultural income of Rs.15,000/-. The A.O, based on information that the assessee who during the subject year had sold her agricultural land situated at Village: Pulgaon, Durg (admeasuring 1.610 hectares) to M/s. Chauhan Housing Company, Bhilai on 25.03.2012 for a consideration of 3 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 Rs.1,19,40,000/-, had however in her return of income computed the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) by taking the sale consideration at Rs.50 lacs, thus, in order to bring to tax the suppressed sale consideration of Rs.69.40 lacs [Rs.1,19,40,000/- (-) Rs.50,00,000/-] initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 03.05.2018 was issued to the assessee. 3. The assessee, in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2018, filed her return of income on 03.05.2018 wherein she reworked out the LTCG at Rs.17,43,744/- by taking the sale consideration at Rs.1,19,40,000/-. The assessee in her return of income filed u/s. 148 of the Act had for computing the LTCG on sale of land taken the “purchase cost” at Rs.54,26,154/-. However, the assessee during the assessment proceedings filed a revised computation of income wherein the “purchase cost” of the land was disclosed by her at Rs.49,78,194/- (as against Rs.54,26,154/- that was reported in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act). The LTCG of Rs.17,43,744/- (supra) disclosed by the assessee was accepted by the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 20.12.2018. 4. The Pr. CIT after culmination of the assessment proceedings called for the assessment record. The Pr. CIT vide his order u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2021 set-aside the assessment order and directed the A.O to 4 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 revisit certain issues pertaining to the case which, inter alia, included viz. (i) the assessee’s claim for deduction of the “purchase cost” of Rs.49,78,194/-; and (ii) the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s. 54B of the Act. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Pr. CIT are culled out as under: “In order to take recourse to the provisions of section 263(1) of the Income Tax Act the Commissioner of Income Tax has to be satisfied with the twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. If one of the conditions is absent- if the order of the AO is erroneous but it is not prejudicial to the interest of revenue or it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the revenue — recourse to section 263(1) cannot be had [ Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V. CIT (2000) ITR 83 (SC)]. Considering upon the conditions as laid down under the provisions of section 263(1), it needs to be ascertained whether in the impugned case such parameters are fulfilled. 1. In the impugned case the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the computation of income filed during the course of assessment proceedings along with an undated written submission. On going through the revised computation, it is found that the quantum of deduction claimed was different from the one submitted along with the revised return of income filed on 03/05/2018 at Rs. 46,55,970/- instead of Rs. 52,18,062/- claimed earlier. On going through the records called for during the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed that the claim of deduction u/s 54B amounting to Rs. 46,56,970/- is incorrect as per the sale deed relevant to the purchase of 1st agricultural land for claiming deduction u/s 54B. The actual purchase price of the said land is amounted at Rs. 45,70,500/-. Thus, there is an excess claim of deduction to the tune of Rs. 86,470/-. It is further pertinent to mention here that all the other conditions laid down for allowing deduction u/s 54B of the Act were not verified. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee's further claim of purchase of another two ands out of the sale proceeds and in turn claim of deduction u/s 54B before the Assessing Officer was allowed. On verification of sale deeds 5 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 relevant to these purchases made by the assessee, it is evident that both these land properties are no eligible for claim deduction u/s 54B for non-compliance of conditions as laid down under the provisions of section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The exemption under section 54B is available in respect of capital gain arising from transfer agricultural from transfer of agricultural land, if the following conditions are fulfilled: - 1. The agricultural land had been transferred by an individual or HUF; 2. The agricultural land has been used by the individual or his parents for agricultural purposes during the 2 years immediately preceding the date of transfer. 3. The assessee had purchased another agricultural land (rural or urban) within a period of 2 years after the date of transfer of the original agricultural land to be used for agricultural purposes. 1. The assessee in this case has fulfilled the condition No. (i) by selling the land held in her name for an amount of Rs. 1,19,40,000/- to M/s. Chouhan Housing Company, Bhilai on 25/03/2012. However, the condition enumerated at (ii) has not been verified as to whether agricultural activities has been carried out in the agricultural land during the period of 2 years immediately before transferring the land. The assessee was required to submit concrete evidence such as mandi receipts and other sale receipts, bills of loading and unloading of agricultural produce, purchase bills for manures, pesticides and insecticides, records of labour payment working in the field, etc. Similarly, the condition enumerated at (iii) is also left unverified as regards usage of agricultural land purchased within a period of 2 years after the dare of transfer of the original agricultural land. As per the 3rd condition the new agricultural land purchased is used for agricultural purposes and not for any non-agricultural activities. Therefore, it needs to be verified as to whether the said new land acquired has not been sold out. Thus, deduction allowed u/s 54B to the tune of Rs. 46,56,970/- is not allowable in absence of sufficient proof for allowing such claim. 2. As regards assessee's claim for deduction u/s 54B on purchase of other two new assets, it is pointed out that on verification of the sale deeds of these properties it is found that the new assets purchased out of the capital gains received on sale of the original asset (agricultural land) are 6 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 not agricultural lands but are residential plots and have been purchased on 31/03/2012 after the date of transfer of the original asset i.e., on 25/03/2012. Thus, one of the basic conditions as laid down under the provisions of section 54B of the Act has been grossly violated in as much as deduction has been claimed against purchase of residential plots and not agricultural lands which is a primary condition for allowing such deduction. 3. It further needs to be highlighted that the value of cost of acquisition of the original asset(agricultural land) as reported in the computation of income at Rs. 49,78,194/- is not found correct on verification of the sale deed of agricultural land at Khasra No. 260/4, 261/4, 262/17 and 262/18 at Mouza: Pulgaon, durg, Patwari Halka No. 18/25, Rajaswa Nirikshak Mandal: Durg-1, Vikas Khand: Durg, NgarPalika Nigam, Rin Pustikka No. P-0090719. The assessee and the owner of the agricultural land, Smt. Kamlachandrakar, w/o Shri G.P Chandrakar has actually received sale proceeds to the tune of Rs. 15,92,000 in cash as a full and final settlement for the said transaction. The assessee had to also pay other statutory payments relating to land transfer which amounted to Rs. 4,79,200/-. Thus, a total sum of Rs,20.71,200/- had been paid but the asssessee as cost of acquisition for the said property and not Rs. 49,78,194/-as claimed but the assessee in her computation of income. 4. Hence, the order passed is erroneous as proper verification has not been made during the course of assessment proceedings emanating from the records to draw the inferences as regards to the value of deduction claimed out of long-term capital gain computed, the value of cost of acquisition of assets claimed by the assessee. Thus, the assessment made is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In the light of above chart, the A.O failed to verify the above aspect during assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no application of mind on the part of the AO to verify the claim of the assessee in the return of income and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In view of above facts, a show cause notice u/s 263 was issued to assessee, incorporating all the above facts to furnish his reply in support of his claim but assessee failed to comply with the notice u/ s 263. Therefore, I am satisfied that assesee has nothing to say in this regard and order passed by 7 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 the A.O u/s 143(3) is without application of mind and conducting necessary enquiry hence erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. These fact find support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd Vs CIT [2000] 109 Taxman 66 (SC) : \"In the instant case, the Commissioner noted that the /TO passed the order of nil assessment without application of mind. Indeed, the High Court recorded the finding that the /TO failed to apply his mind to the case in all perspective and the order passed by him was erroneous. It appeared that the resolution passed by the board of the appellant-company was not placed before the Assessing Officer. Thus, there was no material to support the claim of the appellant that the said amount represented compensation for loss of agricultural income. He accepted the entry in the statement of the account filed by the appellant in the absence of any supporting material and without making any inquiry, On these facts the conclusion that the order of the ITO was erroneous was irresistible. Therefore. the High Court had rightly held that the exercise of the jurisdiction by the Commissioner under section 263(1) was justified\" And in the case of Ambika Agro Suppliers Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd. 2(6), Jalgaon [2005] 95 ITD 326 (PUNE) IN THE ITAT PUNE BENCH wherein it was held \"Commissioner set aside assessment order on grounds that Assessing Officer had not made proper enquiries in regard to (a) considerable increase in salary and account writing fees; (b) genuineness of debts; (c) genuineness of transactions on cash payment exceeding Rs. 10,000, identity of payee and circumstances compelling assessee to make cash payments; and (d) genuineness of unsecured loans taken from certain persons - Whether acceptance of assessee's explanation without any enquiry rendered assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to interests of revenue - Held, yes - Whether Commissioner had given cogent reasons in support of his action and, therefore, Commissioner, having wide powers under section 263, had rightly set aside assessment order - Held, yes\" Further, In the case of Assam Tea House Vs CIT [2012] 25 taxmann.com 93 (Punjab & Haryana) HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA wherein it was held that Where Commissioner had recorded that order of Assessing Officer did not show verification of closing stock, purchase, and 8 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 transportation, etc., he was justified in exercising power under section 263. In the case of Jagdish Kumar Gulativs. Commissioner of Income-tax\" [2004] 139 TAXMAN 369 (ALL.) HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD \" Whether when an assessment is done under section 143(3), it is expected that Assessing Officer will make a detailed enquiry to find out correct income of assessee and not to take facts placed by assessee on their face value - Held, yes - Whether where Assessing Officer completed assessment proceedings under section 143(3) and admitted that he could not make proper enquiries as assessment was becoming time- barred, there was valid assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 by Commissioner, and Tribunal, in such a situation, did not commit any error in law in confirming order of Commissioner in setting aside assessment and directing Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment - Held, yes\" Moreover, in the case of Appollo Tyres Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 46 taxmann.com 421 (Kerala) HIGH COURT OF KERALA \" it was held that Commissioner, by detailed order passed under section 263, held that several issues raised in order passed under section 263 were not explained properly and, therefore, matter came to be remanded for fresh consideration by Assessing Officer- on appeal, Tribunal also confirmed opinion of Commissioner that there was no application of mind while considering assessment under section 143(3) and, therefore, it was not only erroneous but also prejudicial to interest of revenue and further, procedure adopted definitely would have implication on tax computation which ultimately caused prejudice to revenue.\" Considering the overall legal provision as held in various case laws as enumerated above it leads to conclusion that No enquiry on the issues or non-application of mind for reaching any conclusion would certainly lead to held the order erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 5. I have gone through the case record and submission of the assessee. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer has not conducted proper enquiry regarding issues discussed in Notice u/s 263. Therefore, I am satisfied that the assessment order is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue in view of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Income tax Act. The A.0 is directed to make adequate enquiries with regard to issues discussed in above paras. I, therefore, set aside the assessment order and 9 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 remand it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issues discussed herein above by conducting necessary enquiries in this case and framing fresh assessment order after affording adequate opportunities to the assessee.” 5. The A.O in the course of set-aside proceedings while giving effect to the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2021, disallowed the assessee’s claim for exemption u/s. 54B of the Act of Rs.46,56,970/-. This was the only addition/disallowance that was made by the A.O in the course of fresh re-assessment order that was passed while giving effect to the order of the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2021. 6. Thereafter, the Pr. CIT on an examination of the ex-parte fresh reassessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022, observed that there were three issues which were not taken into consideration by the A.O, as under: (i) sale consideration of the subject land was accepted by the A.O at Rs.1.19 crore (as disclosed by the assessee in her return of income filed u/s. 148 of the Act) instead of taking the value at Rs.1.25 crore as was fixed by the stamp valuation authority; (ii) the purchase cost of the land was taken by the A.O at Rs.49,78,194/- (as was revised by the assessee in the course of the reassessment 10 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 proceedings) instead of Rs.26,482/- that was shown by her in the original return of income; and (iii) the cost of improvement was taken by the assessee at Rs.32,90,000/-, whereas no such claim for deduction of “cost of improvement” was raised by her in the original return of income. 7. The Pr. CIT based on his aforesaid observations was of the view that the order passed by the A.O u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act, dated 29.02.2022 was erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT set-aside the fresh reassessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022 with a direction to pass a fresh assessment order after making necessary enquiry and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 21.03.2024 has carried the matter in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 11 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 10. Controversy involved in the present appeal lies in a narrow compass, i.e. as to whether or not the A.O while giving effect to the earlier order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2021, had erred in law and facts of the case on three issues, viz. (i) adopting the sale consideration of the subject property for computing LTCG at Rs.1.19 crore (actual sale consideration) as against the value that was adopted by the stamp valuation authority at Rs.1.25 crore; (ii) allowing the assessee’s claim for deduction of the purchase price of the subject land of Rs.49,78,194/- (supra) instead of Rs.26,482/- (supra) disclosed by her in the original return of income; and (iii) allowing the assessee’s claim for deduction of “cost of improvement” of Rs.32,90,000/- when no such claim for deduction was raised by her in the original return of income. 11. Shri Ravi Agrawal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee at the threshold submitted that the A.O in absence of a valid approval u/s.151 of the Act had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and framed the reassessment vide his order u/ss.143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 20.12.2018. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the reassessment order on account of want of valid assumption of jurisdiction was not sustainable, therefore, such invalid order could not have been revised by the Pr.CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 21.03.2024. The Ld. AR in support of his contention that the validity of a reassessment order can be assailed in the course of an appeal filed by 12 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 the assessee against the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act had drawn support from the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Badal Prakash Jindal (HUF) 457 ITR 345 (Orissa). Also, reliance was placed by the Ld. AR upon the order of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of ACIT Vs. Maruti Clean Coal & Power Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.98/RPR/2012 & ITA No.187/RPR/2014, dated 07.03.2018. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as the approval u/s. 151 of the Act had not only been granted by the Pr. CIT-2, Raipur (i.e. the appropriate authority) but also the JCIT, Range-2, Bhopal who was not an authority specified under the aforesaid statutory provision, therefore, the reassessment order passed in absence of valid assumption of jurisdiction could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down. The Ld. AR had drawn our attention to the approval form a/w. the covering letter, Page 5-6 of APB. 12. We have thoughtfully considered the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR and are unable to persuade ourselves to concur with the same. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the JCIT, Range-2, Bhilai, who though was not vested with any jurisdiction to grant approval u/s. 151 of the Act, had also observed in the “approval form” that it is a fit case for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. However, we cannot remain oblivion of the fact that thereafter, the appropriate authority, i.e. Pr. CIT-2, Raipur in the said “approval form” had granted his approval and given 13 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 specific reasons as to why he was satisfied on the reasons recorded by the A.O that it was a fit case for issuing of a notice u/s. 148 of the Act, which reads as under: As the appropriate authority specified in Section 151 of the Act, i.e. Pr. CIT-2, Raipur had granted the statutory approval to the A.O for issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act, therefore, we are unable to concur with the Ld. AR’s contention that the A.O had wrongly assumed jurisdiction, and in absence of an approval of the specified authority proceeded with and framed the assessment vide his order u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 20.12.2018. 13. The Ld. AR further submitted that as the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 21.03.2024 was barred by limitation, therefore, the same was liable to be struck down on the said count itself. Elaborating his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that the Pr. CIT had revised the order passed by the A.O u/ss. 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 14 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 29.03.2022 on certain issues which did not emanate from the said order. The Ld. AR submitted that the revision u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 21.03.2024 was qua the issues which were germane to the original order of reassessment passed by the A.O u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 20.12.2018. The Ld. AR submitted that as the original reassessment order could have been revised only upto 31.03.2021, whereas the impugned order u/s. 263 of the Act had been passed on 21.03.2024, therefore, the same being barred by limitation cannot be sustained and is liable to be struck down on the said count itself. 14. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities. As the assessee has assailed the order of the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 21.03.2024 based on his multi-facet contentions, therefore, we think it apt to deal with the same in a chronological manner, as under:- A : Adoption of stamp duty value of Rs.1.25 crore 15. Ostensibly, the A.O as per the “reasons to believe”, Page 7 of APB had initiated proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, for the reason that though the assessee had sold the subject property, i.e. agricultural land (admeasuring 1.610 hectare) located at Village: Pulgaon, Durg to M/s. Chauhan Housing Company, Bhilai for a consideration of Rs.1,19,400/-, 15 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 but had in her return of income while computing the LTCG taken the sale consideration at Rs.50 lacs which, thus, had resulted to suppression of LTCG of Rs.69.40 lacs. 16. In compliance, the assessee had filed her return of income u/s. 148 of the Act, wherein she disclosed the sale consideration of the subject property at Rs.1,19,40,000/-. As the assessee in her return of income filed u/s.148 of the Act had taken the sale consideration at Rs.1,19,40,000/-, therefore, the A.O vide his order passed u/ss.143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 20.12.2018 had accepted the LTCG disclosed by her. 17. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue in the backdrop of the orders of the lower authorities and the contentions advanced by the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties in context thereto. We may herein observe that pursuant to the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the A.O to pass the consequential reassessment order while giving effect to the order of revision was circumscribed by the directions of the Pr. CIT and he could not have in the garb of the said set-aside proceedings assumed jurisdiction for making stray additions/disallowances or drawn adverse inferences qua the issues, for which, no direction was given by the revisional authority. 18. For a better understanding of the directions given by the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s.263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2021 (1st round of 16 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 revision), we think it apt to cull out the observations of the Pr. CIT, based on which, he had set-aside the assessment order and had remanded the matter to the file of A.O ascertaining certain aspects, as under: “1. In the impugned case the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the computation of income filed during the course of assessment proceedings along with an undated written submission. On going through the revised computation, it is found that the quantum of deduction claimed was different from the one submitted along with the revised return of income filed on 03/05/2018 at Rs. 46,55,970/- instead of Rs. 52,18,062/- claimed earlier. On going through the records called for during the course of assessment proceedings, it is noticed that the claim of deduction u/s 54B amounting to Rs. 46,56,970/- is incorrect as per the sale deed relevant to the purchase of 1st agricultural land for claiming deduction u/s 54B. The actual purchase price of the said land is amounted at Rs. 45,70,500/-. Thus, there is an excess claim of deduction to the tune of Rs. 86,470/-. It is further pertinent to mention here that all the other conditions laid down for allowing deduction u/s 54B of the Act were not verified. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee's further claim of purchase of another two ands out of the sale proceeds and in turn claim of deduction u/s 54B before the Assessing Officer was allowed. On verification of sale deeds relevant to these purchases made by the assessee, it is evident that both these land properties are no eligible for claim deduction u/s 54B for non-compliance of conditions as laid down under the provisions of section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The exemption under section 54B is available in respect of capital gain arising from transfer agricultural from transfer of agricultural land, if the following conditions are fulfilled: - 1. The agricultural land had been transferred by an individual or HUF; 2. The agricultural land has been used by the individual or his parents for agricultural purposes during the 2 years immediately preceding the date of transfer. 3. The assessee had purchased another agricultural land (rural or urban) within a period of 2 years after the date of 17 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 transfer of the original agricultural land to be used for agricultural purposes. 1. The assessee in this case has fulfilled the condition No. (i) by selling the land held in her name for an amount of Rs. 1,19,40,000/- to M/s. Chouhan Housing Company, Bhilai on 25/03/2012. However, the condition enumerated at (ii) has not been verified as to whether agricultural activities has been carried out in the agricultural land during the period of 2 years immediately before transferring the land. The assessee was required to submit concrete evidence such as mandi receipts and other sale receipts, bills of loading and unloading of agricultural produce, purchase bills for manures, pesticides and insecticides, records of labour payment working in the field, etc. Similarly, the condition enumerated at (iii) is also left unverified as regards usage of agricultural land purchased within a period of 2 years after the dare of transfer of the original agricultural land. As per the 3rd condition the new agricultural land purchased is used for agricultural purposes and not for any non-agricultural activities. Therefore, it needs to be verified as to whether the said new land acquired has not been sold out. Thus, deduction allowed u/s 54B to the tune of Rs. 46,56,970/- is not allowable in absence of sufficient proof for allowing such claim. 2. As regards assessee's claim for deduction u/s 54B on purchase of other two new assets, it is pointed out that on verification of the sale deeds of these properties it is found that the new assets purchased out of the capital gains received on sale of the original asset (agricultural land) are not agricultural lands but are residential plots and have been purchased on 31/03/2012 after the date of transfer of the original asset i.e., on 25/03/2012. Thus, one of the basic conditions as laid down under the provisions of section 54B of the Act has been grossly violated in as much as deduction has been claimed against purchase of residential plots and not agricultural lands which is a primary condition for allowing such deduction. 3. It further needs to be highlighted that the value of cost of acquisition of the original asset(agricultural land) as reported in the computation of income at Rs. 49,78,194/- is not found correct on verification of the sale deed of agricultural land at Khasra No. 260/4, 261/4, 262/17 and 262/18 at Mouza: Pulgaon, durg, Patwari Halka No. 18/25, Rajaswa Nirikshak Mandal: Durg-1, Vikas Khand: Durg, NgarPalika Nigam, Rin Pustikka No. P-0090719. The assessee and the owner of the agricultural land, Smt. Kamlachandrakar, w/o Shri G.P 18 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 Chandrakar has actually received sale proceeds to the tune of Rs. 15,92,000 in cash as a full and final settlement for the said transaction. The assessee had to also pay other statutory payments relating to land transfer which amounted to Rs. 4,79,200/-. Thus, a total sum of Rs,20.71,200/- had been paid but the asssessee as cost of acquisition for the said property and not Rs. 49,78,194/-as claimed but the assessee in her computation of income. 4. Hence, the order passed is erroneous as proper verification has not been made during the course of assessment proceedings emanating from the records to draw the inferences as regards to the value of deduction claimed out of long-term capital gain computed, the value of cost of acquisition of assets claimed by the assessee. Thus, the assessment made is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. We find on a careful perusal of the aforesaid observations of the Pr. CIT, that he had confined the same qua two aspects, viz. (i) the assessee’s claim for deduction of “purchase cost” of Rs.49,78,194/-; and (ii) the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s. 54B of the Act. The Pr. CIT had at no stage recorded any observation qua the sale consideration of the subject land much the less given any direction to the A.O to carry out any verification on the said aspect. 19. As the Pr. CIT vide his order u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2021 had not vested any jurisdiction with the A.O to look into the sale consideration of the subject property, therefore, we find substance in the Ld. AR’s claim that the A.O based on his circumscribed jurisdiction qua only the issues, based on which, the order passed by him u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 20.12.2018 was set-aside by the Pr. CIT, 19 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 Raipur-1 vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2021, could not have looked into the issue as to whether or not the sale consideration of the subject property that was disclosed by the assessee at Rs.1,19,40,000/- was in order or not. 20. We are further of the view that as stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, the aforesaid issue i.e. adoption u/s. 50C of the Act of the segment rate/stamp value of Rs.1.25 crore as against Rs.1.19 crore (supra) that was disclosed by the assessee in her return of income was an issue which did not emanate from the order passed by the A.O u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022, i.e. while giving effect to the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 28.03.2021 (1st round of revision), but was germane to the original order of reassessment that was passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 20.12.2018. Accordingly, if the failure on the part of the A.O to adopt the segment rate/stamp value as the deemed sale consideration for computing the capital gain was to be construed as an error on the part of the A.O rendering his order as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue u/s. 263 of the Act, then it was the original order of reassessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147, dated 20.12.2018 which was amenable for revision. However, we find that the reassessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 20.12.2018 could have been revised u/s. 263 of the Act latest by 31.03.2021, which however had lapsed way back. 20 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 21. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observation vacate the order of the Pr. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 21.03.2024 to the extent he had set-aside the reassessment order passed by the A.O u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022 by holding the same as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason that he had failed in not adopting the segment rate/stamp duty value of Rs.1.25 crore as the deemed sale consideration of the property u/s.50C of the Act for computing the LTCG on sale of the same. B. Deduction of “purchase cost”: Rs. 26,482/- 22. We shall now deal with the view taken by the Pr. CIT, wherein he had observed that as the assessee had in her original return of income raised a claim for deduction of “purchase cost” of Rs.26,482/-, whereas, the same thereafter, was claimed at Rs.54,26,154/- by her in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act (which thereafter based on a revised computation filed in the course of the reassessment proceedings was restricted to Rs.49,78,194/-) and the same had been allowed by the A.O, therefore, the order passed by him u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022 was rendered as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The observations of the Pr. CIT on the aforesaid aspect are culled out as under: 21 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 “4. The reply of the assessee was perused carefully and was not found acceptable due to the fact that, the assessee is constantly changing his stand with reference to the cost of acquisition and cost of improvement of the sold property. It was observed that indexed cost of acquisition of the sold property as per return of income filed on 31.03.2013 for the Asstt. Year 2012-13 was taken at Rs. 26,482/- only. However, the same was inflated to Rs. 21,36,154/- in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Similarly. the cost of improvement was NIL in the original return of income but, the same was taken at Rs.32,90,000/- in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By claiming higher cost of acquisition and cost of improvement for the purpose of computation of Capital Gains is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue as provision of section 148 of the Act its for the benefit of the department and not for the benefit of the assessee. Hence, in view of the issues involved in this case and submission of the assessee, the undersigned is of the firm view that, the matter needs re-verification and therefore, the matter is being set- aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of facts and fresh adjudication.” Accordingly, the Pr. CIT held a conviction that as the provisions of Section 148 of the Act were for the benefit of the department and not for the benefit of the assessee, therefore, the latter was not vested with any right to have raised a higher claim of deduction qua the “purchase cost” of the subject property in her return of income that was filed by her in compliance to notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. 23. We have given thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid observation of the Pr.CIT, and would mince no word in observing that though at the first blush the same appeared to be convincing but the same is not supported by the mandate of law. Admittedly, as observed by the Pr. CIT, 22 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 and rightly so, the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act are for the benefit of the department and not for the benefit of the assessee. We concur with the Ld. Pr. CIT that as Section 147 of the Act is for the benefit of the revenue and not the assessee, therefore, the assessee cannot be permitted to convert the reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision, in disguise, and seek relief in respect of items earlier rejected or claim relief in respect of items not claimed in the original assessment proceedings, unless relatable to the “escaped income”. Accordingly, it is not open to an assessee to seek a review of the concluded items, unconnected with the escapement of income, for the purpose of computation of the escaped income. At the same time, we may herein observe that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd., 198 ITR 297 (SC), had observed that in the reassessment proceedings for bringing to tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction of any expenditure in respect of that income or the non-taxability of the items at all. It was further observed that in the proceedings u/s.147 of the Act, which are for the benefit of the revenue and not an assessee, an assessee cannot be permitted to convert the reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision, in disguise, and seek relief in respect of items earlier rejected or claim relief in respect of items not claimed in the original assessment proceedings, unless relatable to 'escaped income'. The Hon’ble Apex Court after referring to the principles 23 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 laid down in its earlier order in the case of V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT/CEPT [1970] 75 ITR 373 (SC), had clarified that it is incorrect to read the judgment as if laying down that reassessment wipes out the original assessment and that reassessment is not only confined to 'escaped assessment' or 'under-assessment' but to the entire assessment for the year and start the assessment proceedings de novo giving right to an assessee to reagitate matters which he had lost during the original assessment proceeding and had acquired finality. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that pursuant to the proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, it is only the under assessment which is set aside and not the entire assessment when the reassessment proceedings are initiated. The Hon’ble Apex Court further observed that in the reassessment proceedings for bringing to tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction of any expenditure in respect of that income or the non-taxability of the items at all. Apart from that, the Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that in cases where the claims of the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings relating to the escaped assessment are accepted, still the allowance of such claims had to be limited to the extent, to which they reduce the income to that originally assessed. It was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that for purposes of 'reassessment', income cannot be reduced beyond the income originally assessed. The Hon’ble Apex Court while approving the view that 24 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 was taken by the Tribunal observed that the Tribunal was right in concluding that the items which the assessee wanted to be taken into account in the proceedings u/s. 147 were unconnected with the escapement of income, therefore, the said claim was not be permitted to be raised in the course of the reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court had set-aside the order of the High Court, inter alia, for the reason that the latter had fallen in error in permitting the assessee to reagitate the issues which were unconnected with the escapement of income by assuming as if the original assessment had not been concluded or was 'still open'. For the sake of clarity, the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court are culled out as under: “39. As a result of the aforesaid discussion we find that in proceedings under section 147 the ITO may bring to charge items of income which had escaped assessment other than or in addition to that item or items which have led to the issuance of notice under section 148 and where reassessment is made under section 147 in respect of income which has escaped tax, the ITO's jurisdiction is confined to only such income which has escaped tax or has been under-assessed and does not extend to revising, reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment or permitting the assessee to reagitate questions which had been decided in the original assessment proceedings. It is only the under-assessment which is set aside and not the entire assessment when reassessment proceedings are initiated. The ITO cannot make an order of reassessment inconsistent with the original order of assessment in respect of matters which are not the subject matter of proceedings under section 147. An assessee cannot resist validly initiated reassessment proceedings under this section merely by showing that other income which had been assessed originally was at too high a figure except in cases under section 152(2). The words 'such income' in section 147 clearly refer to the income which is chargeable to tax but has 'escaped assessment' and the ITO's jurisdiction under the 25 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 section is confined only to such income which has escaped assessment. It does not extend to reconsidering generally the concluded earlier assessment. Claims which have been disallowed in the original assessment proceeding cannot be permitted to be reagitated on the assessment being reopened for bringing to tax certain income which had escaped assessment because the controversy on reassessment is confined to matters which are relevant only in respect of the income which had not been brought to tax during the course of the original assessment. A matter not agitated in the concluded original assessment proceedings also cannot be permitted to be agitated in the reassessment proceedings unless relatable to the item sought to be taxed as 'escaped income'. Indeed, in the reassessment proceedings for bringing to tax items which had escaped assessment, it would be open to an assessee to put forward claims for deduction of any expenditure in respect of that income or the non-taxability of the items at all. Keeping in view the object and purpose of the proceedings under section 147 which are for the benefit of the revenue and not an assessee, an assessee cannot be permitted to convert the reassessment proceedings as his appeal or revision, in disguise, and seek relief in respect of items earlier rejected or claim relief in respect of items not claimed in the original assessment proceedings, unless relatable to 'escaped income', and reagitate the concluded matters. Even in cases where the claims of the assessee during the course of reassessment proceedings related to the escaped assessment are accepted, still the allowance of such claims has to be limited to the extent to which they reduce the income to that originally assessed. The income for purposes of 'reassessment' cannot be reduced beyond the income originally assessed. 40. It would be seen that whereas in the case of Anglo French Textile Co. Ltd. (supra) the question as to the rights of an assessee to claim 'redoing', 'revising' or 'recomputing' entire income during the reassessment proceedings was left open, that question did not come up for consideration in the case of H.R. Shri Ramulu ( supra) or H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulahi (supra) or even in V. Jaganmohan Rao's case (supra). Some of the High Courts, therefore, fell in error in reading those judgments, divorced from the context in which the precise questions came up for consideration in those cases, and to hold that the assessee could 'reagitate' the concluded issues and claim relief in respect of items, finally concluded in the original assessment proceedings, during the reassessment proceedings, unconnected with the escapement 26 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 of income. We cannot, therefore, approve in broad propositions laid in that regard in Indian Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), Ramsevak Paul's case (supra ), Assam Oil Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), Standard Motor Products of India Ltd.'s case (supra), Rangnath Bangur's case (supra), State Bank of Hyderabad's case (supra) and Indian Rare Earth Ltd.'s case (supra). 41. Keeping in view the above principles, we may now turn our attention to the question formulated by the High Court as noticed in the earlier part of the judgment. 42. The Tribunal rightly found that the loss which the assessee wanted to be set off against the 'escaped income' could not be allowed to be so set off because in the original assessment proceedings, no 'set off' was claimed or permitted and the original assessment had acquired finality when the appeal against the order of assessment failed before the AAC and the assessee took no further steps to agitate the issue. The Tribunal was also right in concluding that the items which the assessee wanted to be taken into account in the proceedings under section 147 were unconnected with the escapement of income. The High Court clearly fell in error in holding otherwise. Since the original assessment had been concluded finally against the assessee, it was not permissible for the assessee in the reassessment proceedings to seek a review/revision of the concluded assessment for the purpose of computation of the escaped income. The High Court clearly fell in error by permitting the assessee to reagitate, in the reassessment proceedings under section 147(a), the finally concluded assessment proceedings and to grant to him relief in respect of items not only earlier rejected, but also unconnected with the escapement of income by assuming as if the original assessment had not been concluded or was 'still open'. 43. Therefore, our answer to the question formulated by the High Court and noticed in the earlier part of this judgment is that in the reassessment proceedings it is not open to an assessee to seek a review of the concluded item, unconnected with the escapement of income, for the purpose of computation of the escaped income. 44. The appeals, consequently, succeed and are allowed. The orders of the High Court are set aside and those of the Tribunal restored. Since the assessee had not put in any appearance, there shall be no order as to costs.” 27 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 24. We, thus, in terms of the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (supra), are of a firm conviction that in so far the assessee in the present case before us had in her return of income filed in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2018 raised the claim for deduction of “purchase cost” of the subject property, which is an inextricable part of the mechanism for computing her income under the head LTCG, which had formed the very basis for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act in her case, therefore, the same in the backdrop of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court is well in order and no infirmity emerges therefrom. C: Deduction of “cost of improvement” : Rs.32,90,000/- 25. We shall now deal with the observation of the Pr. CIT that the A.O while passing order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 29.03.2022 had erred in allowing the assessee’s claim for deduction of “cost of improvement” of Rs.32,90,000/-, whereas no such claim for deduction was raised by her in the original return of income. 26. Before proceeding any further, we may herein observe that the factual position pertaining to the aforesaid issue is not discernible from the record available before us. Although, the Pr. CIT vide his order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 21.03.2024 had at Page 3 observed that the assessee 28 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 in her return of income filed in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2018 had, inter alia, raised a claim for deduction of “cost of improvement” of Rs.32.90 lacs but the said fact is ostensibly not found to be in conformity with the material/record available before us. We find on a perusal of the computation of income that was enclosed by the assessee a/w. her return of income filed in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act that she had not raised any claim for deduction of “cost of improvement” and had computed LTCG on sale of the subject land, as under: Apart from that, we find on a perusal of the reassessment order passed by the A.O u/ss.143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 20.12.2018, that the A.O while computing the assessee’s income from “capital gain” had not allowed any deduction towards “cost of improvement”. For the sake of clarity, the computation of “Income from capital gain” as can be gathered from the order passed by the A.O u/ss. 143(3)/147 of the Act, dated 20.12.2018 is culled out as under: Income from business and profession Rs.1,62,630/- Income from capital gain Rs.17,43,744/- 29 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 Sale consideration Rs.1,19,40,000/- Less Purchase Cost Rs.49,78,194/- Capital gain Rs.69,61,806/- Less exemption u/s. 54B Rs.52,18,062/- capital gain Rs.17,43,744/- At the same time, we find that the genesis of the aforesaid contradictory observation can be related to the fact that though the assessee in her computation of income had claimed “purchase cost” at Rs.54,26,154/- ( which thereafter revised by her during the assessment proceedings based on a revised computation of income to Rs.49,78,194/-) but as per working of the Pr. CIT in the body of the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 21.03.2024, Page 3 of his order, the assessee’s claim of “purchase cost” of Rs.54,26,154/- had been bifurcated by him into two parts, viz. (i) cost of acquisition: Rs.21,36,154/-; and (ii) cost of improvement: Rs.32,90,000/- . As the fact that as to whether or not the assessee had raised any claim for deduction of “cost of improvement” of Rs.32.90 lacs (supra) in her return of income filed in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2018 is not discernible from the record available before us, therefore, the A.O is directed to verify the correct factual position. In case the assessee had raised the claim for deduction of “cost of improvement” of Rs.32.90 lacs in the return of income filed by her in compliance to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dated 28.03.2018, then her entitlement to raise such 30 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 claim for deduction, though for the first time, would be governed by our aforesaid observations. 27. Before parting, we may herein observe that if the observation of the Ld. Pr. CIT that the assessee had raised a claim for deduction of “cost of improvement” of Rs.32.90 lac is found to be in order, then in the backdrop of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd. (supra) our observation regarding the entitlement of the assessee to raise such claim for deduction qua the issue which had formed the genesis for initiating proceedings u/s.147 of the Act would principally be in order though subject to verification of the facts/figures. 28. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations modify the order passed by the Pr. CIT passed u/s. 263 of the Act, dated 21.03.2024. 29. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 21st day of November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 21st November, 2024. **#SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 31 Kamala Chandrakar Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 ITA No. 215/RPR/2024 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. "