RAMA RANI,CHANDIGARH V. DCIT,CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH, CHANDIGARH

ITA 933/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ms. Rama Rani, the appellant, contesting the revisionary jurisdiction invoked by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Pr. CIT proposed a revision of the assessment initially framed by the AO under section 147, which was later contested by the assessee. The primary contention was regarding the alleged lack of inquiry into the capital gains claimed by the assessee, which were accepted in the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal examined the proceedings and found that the AO had indeed made sufficient inquiries and accepted the assessee's explanations and documents, thus quashing the revisionary order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705893 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL LD
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVINDER KRISHAN LD
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Capital Gains; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263; 54F

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 933/CHANDI/2024 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ms. Rama Rani H. No 1058, Popular Enclave Sector 48-B, Chandigarh बनाम/ Vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Chandigarh. ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AERPR-2072-Q (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Ravinder Krishan (Advocate)– Ld. AR ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 30-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee assails invocation of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr.CIT) for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 vide impugned order dated 14-03-2024 proposing revision of assessment as framed by Ld. AO u/s.147 of the Act on 29-03-2022. The registry has noted delay of 98 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of condonation petition which is accompanied by an affidavit of the assessee. It has been stated that the assessee was not in India when 2 the order was served by the department. The supporting documents have also been attached. Upon perusal of the same, we are of the opinion that the assessee has established sufficient cause to explain the delay and accordingly, we admit the appeal and proceed for adjudication thereof on merits. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. 2. It emerges that the returned income as filed by the assessee on 28- 08-2015 was subjected to scrutiny u/s 143(3) and an assessment was framed u/s 143(3) on 29-06-2017 accepting the returned income of the assessee. However, to verify capital gains and sources of investment, the case was reopened and notice was issued u/s 142(1) calling for various details from the assessee. The assessee filed the documents / explanations and after due verification thereof, the returned income of Rs.104.40 Lacs was again accepted in reassessment proceedings. The perusal of computation of income would show that the assessee declared Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.184.73 Lacs against which the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54F for Rs.85.77 Lacs for the reason that it made investment in house property and also deposited certain amount in the capital gains account scheme to lay claim on this deduction. 3. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT, upon perusal of case records, alleged that no enquiry was made with respect to capital gain of Rs.85.77 Lacs and assessment was completed without due verification thereof. However, the assessee assailed the revision and furnished computation of income and drew attention to various queries raised by Ld. AO during the course of original assessment proceedings wherein in notice u/s 142(1) dated 16- 3 01-2017, the assessee was directed to file details of new property along with relevant documents in support of the claim. A specific query was raised on the investment made by the assessee during the year. It was, inter-alia, submitted by the assessee that the proceeds were invested for the purchase of land at Sekkhomajra on which building had been constructed. The proof of deposit of Rs.50 Lacs in capital gain account scheme was also furnished along with copy of purchase deed of land. The building was stated to be constructed out of sale proceeds with the help of contractor Shri Bhupinder Singh. The case was reopened to re-appraise the same facts and after considering assessee’s explanation / submissions, the returned income was again accepted by Ld. AO. Thus, Ld. AO applied his mind to the impugned issue not only at the time of original assessment proceedings but also during reassessment proceeding and there was no lack of enquiry as alleged. In this background, the assessee assailed revision of the order. However, Ld. Pr. CIT ordered for revision of the order and directed Ld. AO to re-examine the issue of capital gains. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. From the facts as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, it is quite clear that the issue of computation of capital gains was duly been enquired into by Ld. AO not only at the time of regular assessment proceedings but also at the time of reassessment proceedings. The case of the assessee was reopened specifically to examine the claim of capital gains. During these proceedings, the assessee furnished relevant documentary evidences and explanation in support of capital gains 4 computations. After being satisfied with assessee’s explanations / documents, the computation of capital gains was accepted on both the occasions. No perversity could be found in the order of Ld. AO and the records do not support the fact that the impugned issue was not examined by Ld. AO as expected of him. This being the case, the revision of the order could not be held to be justified. Therefore, we do not have any hesitation in quashing the impugned order. 5. The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 04-07-2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 04-07-2025. आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH "