TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 1134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taking on the issues specified in the impugned order in accordance with law. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the ld. CIT, exercising revisionary jurisdiction in respect of the impugned assessment, was of the view that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not examined and applied his mind in relation to two claims made by the assessee per her return of income for the year. Both these issues are being agitated by the assessee per the present appeal vide Ground 2(a) 2(b) of the appeal memo, which we shall take up in seriatim. 3. The first issue relates to the set off of loss of ₹ 17.57 lacs on the sale of Units in ICICI Prudential Balance Fund assessed under the head short term capital gains against the dividend income o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unit being purchased within a period of three months prior to the record date; the sale of such security/unit within a period of three months after such (record) date; and the receipt of dividend on such security/unit (within a period of nine months after such date) which is exempt. The first condition of the units being purchased within a period of three months of the record date is not satisfied in the instant case as the Units were purchased on 21.12.2004, while the dividend was received only on 29.03.2005, so that the said provision had no application. The assessee could not be subjected to revision merely because the AO, being satisfied with its explanation, omitted to record the same. The ld. DR, on the other hand, would submit that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2010. As evident, apart from seeking a reply from the assessee in the matter, there is nothing to indicate its consideration by the AO; his order being sans any reference thereto, nor has he made any attempt to verify the facts and, consequently, issued any finding in the matter. Further, the law in the matter would in any case hold, i.e., on the merits of the assessee s claim, so that where valid in law, it would obtain. No prejudice to assessee, in our clear opinion, stands caused by the impugned direction on this aspect by the ld. CIT, which is to be decided on the basis of the law in the matter and, thus, cannot be faulted with, though we cannot help but mentioning that the matter requiring no detailed investigation, it would have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed by the assessee only up to the date of allotment of the shares, i.e., from the date of application for shares to the date of their allotment. At this stage, it was again pointed out to him that the capital asset (i.e., the shares under reference) comes into being and, in any case, becomes the assessee s asset only on its allotment and, therefore, it is again apparently not understood as to how interest for the pre-allotment period would go to comprise the acquisition cost of the said asset prior thereto (allotment). Also, the quantum of borrowed capital on which interest has been claimed would be in issue as the entire of the application money financed thereby may not have been converted into the asset. The ld. DR, on the other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
