Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 528 - AT - Income TaxRevision order u/s. 263 - ingenuine Long Term Capital Gains - Held that:- rom this finding, it is clear that all the information are available before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and he has formed an opinion on the issue of Long Term Capital Gains and held to be genuine. From the facts narrated above by Ld. counsel, it is clear that the share premium cannot be questioned under the provisions of the Act in the relevant assessment year but the amendment in section 56(2) of the Act in acquisition of shares and securities at below the fair market value is brought in w.e.f. 01.10.2009 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009. The transaction of the assessee is prior to 01.10.2009 and there is no scope for the AO to go into FMV of sale of shares. As regards the acquisition of shares of SBT Consultants Pvt. Ltd., these were acquired in FY 2004-05 relevant to AY 2005-06 and for that the enquiry is to be conducted in AY 2005-06, which is beyond the scope of revision proceedings under consideration. Even the very basis of selection for scrutiny under CASS was to enquire into investment in REC Bonds as demonstrated by the Ld. counsel before us from the very first notice issued for scrutiny assessment the source of investment of ₹ 25,00,000/- in REC Bonds u/s. 54EC of the Act by the assessee is out of the sale proceeds of shares of SBT Consultants Pvt. Ltd. at entire long term capital gains of ₹ 24,68,655/- was invested. The AO has examined the sale value of the above shares with reference to the bank statement produced before him and the transactions are through account payee cheques to prove the genuineness of the transactions. AO has not examined the loan taken from M/s. Daymark & Sons (HUF) - Held that:- In respect to second issue of loan received by assessee from M/s. Daymark & Sons (HUF) is a carried forward loan and this cannot be questioned in this AY i.e. 2009-10. AO has not examined the squared up transaction of loan of ₹ 2 lacs from Shri Vikash Choudhury - Held that:- In respect to the third issue of loan from Bikash Chowdhury of ₹ 2 lacs through an account payee cheque on 05.05.2008, the same was refunded on 27.06.2008 and both the transactions are recorded in assessee’s Canara Bank A/c. and which was examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Even the investment of Rs./70000/- being deposit in PPF A/c. is withdrawal out of the saving bank account maintained with Canara Bank. All these information were made available to the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and he has examined all the aspects of the case and the same is evident from the order sheet entries of the assessment proceedings. Thus examining the entire assessment records and details filed before the AO by the assessee, which clearly proves that the AO has applied his mind. The records of the assessment including the order sheet entries show that the AO has made appropriate enquiry after hearing the assessee from time to time. Thus the revision order passed by the CIT is without any legal and factual basis and hence, the same is quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|