Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 101 - MADRAS HIGH COURTRevision u/s 263 - selecting the case for limited scrutiny through CASS to consider two issues namely were substantial increase in capital in a year and the sale consideration of the property in the income tax return was less than the sale consideration of the property reported in AIR - HELD THAT:- We find that both the issues, which were the basis for exercise of the powers u/s 263 were, in fact, the issues, which were considered by the AO in the limited scrutiny culminating in the order of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2016. When the PCIT issued the show cause notice dated 13.11.2018 calling upon the assessee to explain with regard to the increase in capital and also conversion of preference shares during the relevant years, the assessee gave a reply dated 02.1.2019. This has been extracted by the Tribunal in paragraph 3.2 of the impugned order. We find the explanation to be cogent and in fact, the factual matrix was appreciated by the Tribunal to hold that the PCIT could not have invoked the revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 mainly on the ground that substantial increase in capital investment reflected by the assessee in his balance sheet as compared to the preceding year. Entire issue is factual and no substantial question of law flows from the contention raised by the Revenue before us. In the case of Maithan International [2015 (4) TMI 479 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] decision is not only distinguishable on facts, but also does not render any assistance to the Revenue. In the case on hand, no such finding has been recorded by the PCIT in the order dated 03.1.2019. No substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal.
|