The Surat Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has quashed the revision order holding that the order could not be treated as erroneous if the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had opined that the order should have been written more elaborate.
The claim made by the assessee Rajendrakumar Kantilal Patel, for deduction u/s 54 B of the Act on investment in agricultural land is in accordance with the provisions of Law and even if addition was made for the alleged deemed capital gain derived on the basis of valuation made by the DVO in respect of the Asarma Village plot, then also there was no question of the treating the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue because, after deduction u/s 54B of the Act which had been allowed by the AO after due verification, there would be no tax liability.”
Akshay Modi, on behalf of the assessee submitted that the entire information was with the Assessing Officer, and issue raised by the PCIT had been examined by the Assessing Officer and took a possible view, therefore order passed by the Assessing Officer should not be erroneous.
Ritesh Mishra, appeared on behalf of the revenue.
The Division Bench of Pawan Singh, (Judicial Member) and A. L. Saini, (Accountant Member) quashed the impugned order holding that there was no question of absence of any inquiry nor any point of “lack of inquiry”. The Bench further held that, “If an Income-tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because, according to him, the order should have been written more elaborately.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
