Sh. Arjun Singh vs PCIT

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [in short, the “PCIT”], Faridabad’s order dated 17.03.2021 having DIN and order no. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-21/1031564514(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against the learned PCIT’s section 263 revision directions terming the Assessing Officer’s assessment framed on 28.12.2018 as an erroneous one thereby causing prejudice to the interest of the Revenue for the precise reason that the latter had considered only cash deposits of Rs.1.29 crores and its explanation than the total amount of Rs.9.50 crores as well as assessment thereof as longterm capital gains arising from transfer of a capital asset as defined in section 2(14) of the Act.

It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee is aggrieved against section 263 revision directions.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the learned PCIT’s section 263 revision directions herein. The first and foremost issue which arises for the tribunal’s apt adjudication therefrom is that of the assessee’s total sale consideration of Rs.9.50 crores as per the learned PCIT’s revision directions. We wish to make it clear that there is no dispute all along that the assessee had sold/transferred his agricultural lands on 11.03.2013 only for stamp value of Rs.1.18 crores. That being the case, he first of all submits that this tribunal in his appeal ITA No.5095/Del/2025 decided on 17.02.2006 against the very assessment has settled the issue that he had received cheque amount of Rs.4.66 crores as well from the vendee concerned, Sh. Ram Niwas, s/o Tejrai. His stand therefore is that the total sale price herein comes to Rs.9.50 crores as alleged in the learned PCIT’s revision direction which is not found to be based on correct appreciation of the relevant facts.

Our attention is further invited to the assessee’s bank statement(s) at pages 15 to 20 of the paper-book inter alia indicating total credits of Rs.9,24,91,661/- which included KCC loan & interest have gone unrebutted from the departmental side. Faced with this situation, learned CIT/DR vehemently argues that apart from the assessee’s sale consideration amount, the PCIT has further directed the Assessing Officer to examine the assessment of long-term capital gains in the assessee hands.

It is at this stage that the assessee refers to paper-book pages 88 onwards in the CIT(A)/NFAC’s order, forming subject matter of challenge before the tribunal that he had filed revenue records as well as the necessary reports from the state government authorities that the land in question was very well beyond the prescribed distance nowhere forming a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. We thus find merit in the assessee’s stand that the learned PCIT has erred in law and on facts in assuming his section 263 revision jurisdiction both on the former issue of total sale consideration amounting to Rs.9.5 crores as well as assessment of the consequential long-term capital gains; as the case may be, in the foregoing terms. The impugned revision direction stand reversed with all consequential benefits in the assessee’s favour therefore.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.