Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 203 - ITAT KOLKATARevision u/s 263 - difference in share valuation - loss on sale of shares - HELD THAT:- CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on the audit objections,which was with regard to a variation in value of shares.The assessee had filed an explanation on this variation. This Explanation is not doubted by Pr. CIT. When the Explanation is not rejected nor found fault with by the Pr. CIT, it cannot be said that there is an error in the order of the AO which is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.In our view, the assessee has properly explained the difference in value of shares. Just because Audit has raised an objection, the assessment order does not become erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the Revenue. On the issue of loss sustained by the assessee on the sale of shares of M/s. Ankit Metal & Power, the AO had disallowed the loss and hence it cannot be a ground for making a revision u/s 263 of the Act. The disallowance of this loss was made on enquiry and this disallowance is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. On the issue of loans and advances taken by the assessee for purchase of property, the AO made independent enquiries by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act and thereafter accepted the replies after examining them. The Pr. CIT has not pointed out as to what is the error committed by the AO in accepting the replies from various parties. Without pointing out any defects, it cannot be said that there is an error which caused prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. This is not a case of lack of enquiry or non-application of mind. The AO has made an enquiry and has taken a plausible view on the issues. As relying on SPECTRA SHARES & SCRIPS PVT. LTD [2013 (6) TMI 173 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], JYOTI FOUNDATION [2013 (7) TMI 483 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD [2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT] we hold that the revision is bad in law. Hence the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is quashed.- Decided in favour of assessee.
|