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 142 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - case was selected for scrutiny through CASS - investment in unlisted equities - HELD THAT:- In order to buttress this fact the assessee has filed the bank statement as well as mutual funds statements which reflects that the amount has been received from the redemption of mutual funds wherein the copy of statement showing source of investment made in unlisted equities along with relevant bank statement and mutual funds statement are found enclosed. He thereafter drew our attention wherein the details of other investment under non-current investment is given wherein the name of investment in equity instruments are given and from a perusal of the same, we note that the details of investment in quoted shares are given. We note from details viz. name of unquoted and quoted shares along with the number of shares held by the assessee as on 31.03.2015. The entire details of investment made by the assessee is seen to have been filed by the assessee before the AO. So, therefore, the Ld. PCIT's allegation that no details was called for by the AO during the enquiry conducted in respect of huge investment made to the tune in unlisted equity is on wrong assumption of facts and therefore the Ld. PCIT erred on this issue. Disallowance u/s.14A - assessee has suo moto disallowed - This issue has been enquired into by the AO and the assessee has replied to it as aforestated and since the disallowance has been made by the assessee suo moto u/s. 14A read with Rule 8D the fault alleged by the Ld. PCIT is again on wrong assumption of facts. Therefore, the action of the AO cannot be termed as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue for no enquiry on the part of AO - we note that the impugned order of PCIT was without satisfying the condition precedent as stipulated u/s. 263 of the Act that the AO's order dated 19.07.2017 as erroneous as well as prejudicial to the revenue. In the absence of this jurisdictional fact and law, PCIT ought not to have usurped the jurisdiction u/s. 263 to interfere with the assessment order passed by the AO on 19.07.2017. Since the jurisdictional condition precedent has not been satisfied in this case by Ld. PCIT before passing the impugned order, we are inclined to quash the impugned order of Ld PCIT dated 23.03.2020. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|