Madhu Devi Jain. (Smt.) v. ITO (2023) 203 ITD 713 (Hyd) (Trib.)

S. 263 : Commissioner-Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue-Sale of seven flats within three years of acquisition-Revision is held to be justified. [S. 54F , 143(3)]

The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Principal Commissioner set aside Assessing Officer’s order, stating it was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue on ground that assessee had sold seven flats within three years of acquisition, making them ineligible for deduction under section 54F. On appeal the Tribunal held that  assessee having categorically stated that she had sold all flats and thus, not having held flats for a minimum period of 3 years, provisions of section 54F were not fulfilled and therefore, by allowing claim of deduction under section 54F, order of Assessing Officer had become erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue.  Order of revision is afirmed. (AY. 2015-16)