Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 1240 - ITAT KOLKATARevision u/s 263 - addition u/s 68 - Bogus LTCG - AO failed to identify the purpose for which the assessee’s return was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the AO has not taken into consideration the investigation report about penny stock and especially the price variation of scrip thus the AO failed to conduct proper investigation on the claim of LTCG and thus there was non-application of mind by AO, resulting in passing an erroneous assessment order as well as caused prejudice to the interest of Revenue - HELD THAT:- We find from queries raised by AO and replies given by the assessee on the issue of LTCG on sale of shares which we have discussed in detail which is not being repeated for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, we find that AO has conducted enquiry based on investigation report and after having collected all the information and having gone through the documents and having carried out cross-verification from broker and seller of scrip, the AO issued another letter dated 26.12.2017 in respect of the LTCG claim of the assessee, wherein question regarding price variation of ₹ 15/- to ₹ 565/- per share of M/s KPL [question number 8] and the investigation report [question number 10] was asked, the AO being satisfied with the replies, have taken a plausible view which is in line with the views expressed by various Hon’ble High Courts and this Tribunal. AO’s view which was taken by him, after enquiry as discussed supra cannot be termed as unsustainable view in the eyes of law and since AO’s view is plausible view it could not have been interfered by Ld. Pr. CIT as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. [2000 (2) TMI 10 - SUPREME COURT] - since the Ld. Pr. CIT failed to show/demonstrate that the order of the AO was erroneous in respect of accepting the claim of LTCG, we find that the condition precedent necessary to invoke the revisional jurisdiction to u/s 263 of the Act is absent and, therefore, we are inclined to allow the appeal of the assessee
|