आदशे/ORDER

Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-

These appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, dated 29.09.2017 in ITA No.18 & 19/CIT(A)-2/2016-17 for the assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The Revenue has also raised an appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11. The other two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai both dated 21.03.2018 U/s.263 of the Act against the order passed by the Ld.AO dated 17.03.2016 & 28.03.2016 in C.No.218/9/PCIT/2017-18 & C.No.218/10/PCIT-1/2017-18 for the assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively.

2. Assessee’s Appeal in ITA Nos. 2883 & 2884/Chny/2017 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11:-

The assessee has raised several identical grounds for both the assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 however the cruxes of the issues are that

i. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld.AO with respect to reopening of the assessment U/s.147 / 148 of the Act.

ii. The Ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the Ld.AO for treating the land sold by the assessee as non-agricultural land and thereby assessed the Long Term Capital Gain in the hands of the assessee.

iii. For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee has raised an additional ground aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A) for having confirmed the order of the Ld.AO who had only partly allowed the claim of deduction U/s.54F of the Act.

3. Revenue’s Appeal in ITA No.3132/Chny/2017, Assessment Year 2010-11:-

The Revenue has raised several grounds in its appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in treating the sale consideration in respect of land sold during the financial year 2009-10 at Rs.95 lakhs as against Rs.148 lakhs received by the Power of Attorney holder on behalf of the assessee.

4. Assessee’s Appeal in ITA Nos. 2040 & 2041/Chny/2018, Assessment year 2009-10 & 2010-11:-

The assessee has raised several identical grounds for both the assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 against the orders of the Ld.PCIT U/s.263 of the Act and the same is extracted herein below for reference:-

1. For that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax is without jurisdiction, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play.

2. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax does not have jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of section 263 since the assessment order has already merged with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

3. For that without prejudice to the above, the Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that there was no error or prejudice much less both to warrant the invocation of the powers conferred under section 263.

4. For that without prejudice to the above, the Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer has applied his mind in allowing exemption under section 54F

5. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that the appellant had fulfilled all the conditions for claiming exemption u/s.54F

6. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that the demolition of the residential house purchased' will not amount to transfer of the said property as per section 2(47).

7. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that for invoking the provisions of section 54F(3) the new asset should have been transferred and not when the same is demolished and reconstructed.

8. For that the Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that the additional investment of RS.1.5 crores made to secure release of right over property purchased would constitute cost of the said property purchased for the purpose of claiming exemption u/s.54F.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed her return