Renuka Philip( Smt ) v. ITO ( 2018) 409 ITR 567/( 2019) 173 DTR 24 ( Mad) (HC)

S. 263 : Commissioner – Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue -Capital gains- Two views possible and also when an appeal is pending before the CIT(A) on particular issue , Commissioner has no power to revise the order regarding that issue – Court also held that , since the matter has been pending for a quite long number of years and there has been repeated orders of assessment , the Court directed the AO to give effect to the of reassessment dt 31-12-2009 , wherein the AO has granted the benefit of S.54F of the Act . [ S.45,54, 54F , 263(1)(c) ]

Allowing the appeal of the assessee, the Court held that , the AO while completing the reassessment proceedings the AO has allowed the deduction u/s 54F and not u/s 54 of the Act. As regards the cost of acquisition and claim u/s 54 the matter was pending before the CIT(A). Mean while the Commissioner passed the revisional order stating that the claim under S.54F was not correctly allowed  by the AO. Appeal of the assesee before Tribunal was also dismissed . On appeal to the High Court  allowing the appeal of the assessee the Court held that, order passed by the AO  two views possible and also when an appeal is pending before the CIT(A) on particular issue , Commissioner has no power to revise the order regarding that issue .  Court also held that , since the matter has been pending for a quite long number of years and there ahs been repeated orders of assessment , the Court directed the AO to give effect to the of reassessment dt 31-12-2009 , wherein the AO has granted the benefit of S.54F of the Act ( AY.2005 -06)