Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 1812 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - claim of long term capital gain exempt U/s 10(38) - Held that:- Once the AO has called for the relevant record and verified the same before allowing the claim of the assessee then the AO is not required to give detailed reasons in respect of each and every item of deduction in the assessment order. The Commissioner has given much importance and emphasis to the report of the DIT, Patna however, once the assessee has produced evidence which established the genuineness of the transaction being holding of shares by the assessee in the demat account and purchase of the shares against the consideration paid through banking channel then in the absence of bringing any contrary fact or disapproving the evidence produced by the assessee, the mere setting aside issue by the Pr. CIT for denovo consideration is not sustainable. Though Explanation-2 to Section 263 mandates a proper enquiry as the AO should have conducted however, even in the opinion of the Pr. CIT, the AO has not conduced a proper enquiry as it ought to have been once the AO has examined the relevant record in support of the claim of the assessee then, the Commissioner in the proceedings U/s 263 of the Act it also required to have conducted an enquiry to contradict evidence. In the absence of any efforts on the part of the Commissioner to cause a routine inquiry on the issue that has already been conducted by the AO, the order passed by the Pr. CIT merely setting aside the issue to the AO for conducting the denovo assessment is not permissible When the entire evidence in support of the claim was available on the assessment record and the Assessing Officer has already examined the same, then the Pr. CIT directing a re-enquiry on the issue is not permissible U/s 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|