Revision – Condition precedent – Sections 54F, 263 – Assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue – Capital gains – Exemption u/s 54F – Assessee purchasing three units in same building out of consideration received on account of joint development – A.O. allowing exemption taking one of plausible views based on inquiry of claim and law prevalent – Revision to withdraw exemption – Tribunal holding Commissioner failed to record finding that order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue – Tribunal order not erroneous

22. Principal CIT vs. Minal Nayan Shah [2020] 428 ITR 23 (Guj.) Date of order: 1^st September,
2020 A.Y.: 2014-15

Revision – Condition precedent – Sections
54F, 263 – Assessment order should be erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue –
Capital gains – Exemption u/s 54F – Assessee purchasing three units in same
building out of consideration received on account of joint development – A.O.
allowing exemption taking one of plausible views based on inquiry of claim and
law prevalent – Revision to withdraw exemption – Tribunal holding Commissioner
failed to record finding that order of assessment erroneous and prejudicial to
Revenue – Tribunal order not erroneous

The assessee, with
the co-owner of a piece of land, entered into a development agreement and
received consideration for the land. The assessee disclosed long-term capital
gains and claimed exemption under sections 54F and 54EC. The return filed by
the assessee was accepted and an order u/s 143(3) was passed. Thereafter, the
Principal Commissioner in proceedings u/s 263 found that the assessee had
purchased the entire block of the residential project which comprised three
independent units on different floors with different entrances and kitchens,
and directed the A.O. to pass a fresh order in respect of the claim of the
assessee u/s 54F.

The Tribunal found
that the three units were located on different floors of the same structure and
were purchased by the assessee by a common deed of conveyance. The Tribunal
held that the two prerequisites that the order was erroneous and prejudicial to
the interests of the Revenue, that an erroneous order did not necessarily mean
an order with which the Principal Commissioner was unable to agree when there
were two plausible views on the issue and one legally plausible view was
adopted by the A.O. The Tribunal quashed the revision order passed by the
Principal Commissioner u/s 263.

On appeal by the
Revenue, the Gujarat High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and held as
under:

‘i)    It is an essential condition for the
exercise of power u/s 263 that the Commissioner must find an error in the
assessment order of the A.O. prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue and
the conclusion of the Commissioner that the order is erroneous and prejudicial
to the Revenue must be based on materials and contentions raised by the
assessee on an opportunity of hearing being afforded to the assessee.

ii)    On the facts the order of the Tribunal
quashing the revisional order passed by the Principal Commissioner u/s 263 was
not erroneous. The findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal was that one of
the requisite conditions for the exercise of power u/s 263 the Commissioner
should consider the assessment order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests
of the Revenue was not satisfied and in arriving at such conclusion the
Tribunal had assigned cogent reasons. No question of law arose.’