Akula Yesudasu,, Vijayawada v. THE ITO, WARD - 2(1),, Vijayawada

ITA 305/VIZ/2013 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 30525314 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AKVPA3474B
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 305/VIZ/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant Akula Yesudasu,, Vijayawada
Respondent THE ITO, WARD - 2(1),, Vijayawada
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 02-05-2013
Judgment Text
ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM . . $ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.305/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) AKULA VIJAYA LAKSHMI L/R OF AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA VS. ITO WARD - 2(1) VIJAYAWADA [PAN: AKVPA3474B ] ( % / APPELLANT) ( &'% / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G.V.N. HARI AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. HARIPRASAD RAO CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.09.2016 / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIJAYAWADA U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E AN INDIVIDUAL FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 26.5.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.19 200/-. THE CASE HA S BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES THE AUTHO RIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURN ISHED INFORMATION CALLED FOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.19 200/-. TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECTNESS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ISSUED A NOTICE AND ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF ASS ET TRANSFERRED AND MODE OF COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09 HE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10 11 000/- FROM MUNIC IPAL CORPORATION OF VIJAYAWADA FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF A SITE MEA SURING 40.44 SQ.YDS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TOWARDS COMPENSATION RECEIVED FOR COMPULSORY A CQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY FURNISHED A STATEMENT OF C OMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED TOWARDS ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 3 COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IS INCORRECT AS COST OF ACQUISITION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 1.4.1981 IS INCORRECT . IN RESPONSE TO ASSESSING OFFICERS QUERY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED R EVISED COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AND ARRIVED AT A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N OF RS.6 76 764/- AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.10 11 000/- TOWARDS INVESTMENTS IN CONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER RESI DENTIAL HOUSE. THE A.O. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY T HE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION AND COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ACCEPTING INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE CIT VIJAYAWADA ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE D ATED 23.11.2012 AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 25.11.2010 SHALL NOT BE RE VISED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE CIT PRO POSED TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE REASON THAT ON EXAMINATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORDS CERTAIN OMISSIONS AND COMMISSIONS WERE NOT ICED WHICH RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR A S IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE CIT IN THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OBSERVED THAT THE A.O. HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION TOWARD S EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF THE ACT TOWARDS RE-INVESTMENT O F SALE CONSIDERATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THOU GH THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 4 NOT CLAIMED SUCH DEDUCTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE REVISED RE TURN IF THERE IS ANY OMISSIONS AND WRONG STATEMENT IN THE FIRST RETURN. HOWEVER THE A.O. ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY C LAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING REVISED RETURN THEREFORE OPINE D THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IS E RRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY ASSESSMENT OR DER SHALL NOT BE REVISED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 4. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) DATED 25.11.201 0 IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE AS THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE A CT TOWARDS RE- INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS THE A.O. HAS ISSUED A SPECIFIC QUESTIONNAIRE AND THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE DETAILS RELEVANT FOR COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN AND EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE A.O. AFTER SATI SFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED T HE CLAIM THEREFORE ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 5 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. CANNOT BE C ONSIDERED AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. 5. THE CIT AFTER CONSIDERING EXPLANATIONS OF THE AS SESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 25.11.2010 IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDIC IAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXA MINE THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TH E A.O. HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTION WITHOUT ANY CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING REVISED RETURN. THE CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THOUGH ASS ESSEE HAS MADE A FRESH CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT BY REVI SED STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME SUCH CLAIM SHALL NOT BE ENTERTAINED BY THE A.O. UNLESS THE CLAIM IS MADE BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN U/S 139(5) OF THE ACT. TO SUPPORT HIS FINDING RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 AN D OBSERVED THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT A FRESH CLAIM BEFO RE THE A.O. CAN BE MADE ONLY BY WAY OF FILING A REVISED RETURN AND NOT OTHERWISE. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND THE A.O. HAS ALLOWED EXEMPTIO N CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY FRESH CLAI M MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING REVISED RETURN U/S 139(5) OF THE ACT AS SUCH THE ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 6 ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) IS E RRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE . WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RE-DO TH E ASSESSMENT DE-NOVO WITH A DIRECTION TO THE A.O. TO DISALLOW EXEMPTION GIVEN U/S 54F OF THE ACT AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. THE LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT IS ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IN AS MUCH THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2010 PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO DISALLOW EXEMPTI ON U/S 54F OF THE ACT AND FOR THIS PURPOSE DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT DE-NOVO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE A.O. HAS EX AMINED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U /S 54F OF THE ACT. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. AT THE TIM E OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT HAS CALLED FOR RE LEVANT DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT AND AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANA TIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM THEREFORE THE CIT CANNOT FIND ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 7 FAULT WITH THE A.O. WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT S IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO THE A.O. HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISSU E OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL DETAILS AND A.O. HAS VERIFIED THE CLA IM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE CLAIM ALLOWED THE CLAIM. IT IS NOT A CASE OF CIT THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSU E AT ALL. UNLESS THE CIT POINTS OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE THE CIT CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION TO REVI SE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNLESS THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND ALSO PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. FO R THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE MATER IALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. THE CIT ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT O RDER FOR THE REASON THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY BEFO RE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT THEREBY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. THE CIT REVISED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE REASON TH AT THE A.O. HAS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 8 DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE CIT FURT HER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT . THE A.O. WITHOUT ANY SUCH CLAIM SIMPLY ALLOWED EXEMPTION BASED ON RE VISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS OTH ERWISE NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE ACT THE CIT OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE REVISED RE TURN IF THERE IS ANY OMISSIONS OR WRONG STATEMENTS IN THE RETURN FILED E ARLIER. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY REVISED RETURN MAKING FR ESH CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE A.O. WITHOUT ANY SUCH CLAIM SIMPLY ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 8. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A. O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER CONTENDED THAT HE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS RELEVANT FOR COMPU TATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THE A.O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE AN D AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE CLAIM THEREFORE THE CIT WAS INCORRECT IN STATING THAT TH E A.O. HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF ASS ESSMENT. WE FIND ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 9 FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REAS ON THAT ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT DATED 25.11.2010 WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS REPRODUCED CO MPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. FROM THIS IT IS CLEAR THAT T HE A.O. HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE CIT WAS INCORRECT IN HOLDI NG THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CONDUCTED ENQUIRY OR CONDUCTED INADEQUATE ENQUI RY THEREBY HIS ORDER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 9. THE CIT ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSES SMENT ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS A LACK OF ENQUIRY ON THE P ART OF THE A.O. IN EXAMINING THE ISSUE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINS DETA ILS FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON PER USAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED DETAILS OF COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ALSO MAD E A FRESH CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT TOWARDS RE-INVESTMENT OF SALE PROCEEDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY AND THIS FACT WAS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE ALLEGATION OF THE CIT THAT THE ENQUIRY ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 10 CONDUCTED BY THE A.O. IS INADEQUATE BUT THE FACT I S THAT THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRY OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO CALLED F OR NECESSARY DETAILS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS AND THE A.O. AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED B Y THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE QUESTION RAISED BY THE CIT THAT ANY FRESH CLAIM MADE TOWARDS DEDUCT ION OR EXEMPTION CAN BE ENTERTAINED ONLY BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FRESH CLAIM MADE WITHOUT FILING REVISED RETURN THE A.O. SHALL NOT ENTERTAIN SUCH CLAIM AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT(SUPRA). WE DO NOT FIN D ANY MERIT IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT FILED REVISED RETURN AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 139(5) OF THE AC T BUT MADE A CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT BY FILING REVISED STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE WHETHER THE A.O. CAN ENTERTAIN FRESH CLAIM BY WAY OF REVISED RE TURN OR OTHERWISE IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE WHICH INVOLVES TWO POSSIBLE VIEWS. THE A.O. HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW THEREFORE THE CIT CANNOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE A.O. IS ERRON EOUS IN SO FAR AS IT PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 11 10. THE CIT HAS POWER TO REVISE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/ S 263 OF THE ACT BUT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT THE TWIN CONDITIONS MUST BE SATISFIED I.E. (1) THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS (2) FURTHER IT MUST BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. UNLESS BOTH THE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED THE CIT CANNOT A SSUME JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT EVERY ORD ER WHICH IS ERRONEOUS MAY BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE O R VICE VERSA. IN SOME CASES THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. MAY BE ERRONEOUS BUT IT MAY NOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE OR VICE VERSA. UNLESS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS AND ALSO PREJUDICIA L TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE THE CIT CANNOT ASSUME JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THIS IS BECAUSE THE TWIN CONDITIO NS I.E. THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND THE SAME IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE ST OF THE REVENUE ARE CO-EXIST. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE ON HAND ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS CONDUCTED DETAILE D ENQUIRY AND ALSO EXAMINED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY DETAILS AND ALSO MADE A FRESH CLAIM U/S 54F OF THE ACT BY FILING REVISED STATEMENT OF TOTAL IN COME. THE A.O. AFTER SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSE SSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 12 CLAIM. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT WAS INCORRECT IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R ONCE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT HAD FILED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O. ON THE ISSUE ON WHICH CIT WANTS FURTHER VERIFICATION. IT IS A GENE RAL PRESUMPTION OF LAW THAT THE A.O. HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AND THE CIT CANNOT PRESUME THAT THE ENQU IRIES CONDUCTED BY THE A.O. IS INSUFFICIENT AND ALSO THE A.O. HAS N OT APPLIED HIS MIND UNLESS THE CIT CATEGORICALLY PROVES THAT THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS. IN SO FAR AS THE OBSERVATIO N OF THE CIT WITH REGARD TO THE DECISION OF GOETZ (INDIA) LTD. (SUPRA ) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THOUGH THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A FRESH CLA IM BEFORE THE A.O. CAN BE MADE ONLY BY FILING A REVISED RETURN AND NOT OTHERWISE THE A.O. IS WELL AWARE OF THE LEGAL POSITION AND AFTER CONSI DERING THE RELEVANT FACTS CHOSEN TO ALLOW THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH CANNOT BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IS NOT ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. HENCE WE QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND RESTORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.305/VIZAG/2013 AKULA YESUDASU VIJAYAWADA 13 12. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPT16. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (V. DURGA RAO) (G. MANJUNATHA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /VISAKHAPATNAM: ' /DATED : 30.09.2016 VG/SPS )# *# /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / THE APPELLANT AKULA VIJAYA LAKSHMI L/R OF AKU LA YESUDASU D.NO.27-5-15 GOPUVARI STREET GOVERNORPET VIJAYAW ADA 2. / THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD-2(1) VIJAYAWADA 3. + / THE CIT VIJAYAWADA 4. + ( ) / THE CIT (A) VIJAYAWADA 5. # . . # / DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // 12 . (SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY) . # / ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM