TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the PCIT, might have been paid by the assessee for arranging bogus capital gains. In such circumstances, for want of any whisper of commission payment in the assessment order, the said order may at the most be termed as erroneous, but it cannot be prejudicial to the interest of revenue particularly when the AO has added entire purchase value and sale value of shares declared to the income of the assessee as mentioned in assessment order. Unless both the conditions of assessment order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue are satisfied, PCIT was not justified to revise the said order u/s. 263 of the Act as held in several decisions cited by the assessee. No justification to sustain the impugned order. This orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case, the Pr. CIT has erred on facts and in law in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 when the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed by the AO after making detailed enquiries regarding the Long Term Capital Gain on shares. The assessment order u/s 143(3) cannot be set aside merely because the CIT feels that further enquiry should have been made. 5. The Pr. CIT has failed in not appreciating that the issue of sale/purchase of shares was categorically examined by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings and that the assessee had furnished complete details regarding the same. The assessment order u/s 143(3) cannot be set revised merely because the CIT feels that the issue should have been examined from a different angle. 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le on record. 12. That the explanations given, evidence produced, material place and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the order passed u/s 263. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 30.09.2014. Subsequently, the return was revised. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has declared long-term capital gains on sale of shares of ₹ 2,40,38,889/- which was claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the IT Act, the details of which are as under : Name of the scrip Sale Price Purchase Price (indexed) Gain (Exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... head income from other sources . On the reasons mentioned above, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars, hence, penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) is being initiated separately. (Addition of ₹ 2,53,91,809/-) 3. The ld. AR submitted that the order u/s. 263 is not justified at all. During the course of assessment proceedings, all the details were submitted before the Assessing Officer in response to notice u/s. 142(1) who examined the purchase and sales of shares. The purchase and sales of shares were made through recognized Stock Exchange and STT brokerage charges have been paid. All the transactions have been done through banking channels. There is no any whisper re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, the ld. PCIT was justified in setting aside the assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and have gone through the entire material available on record and also the case laws cited by both the parties. From the facts narrated above, the only question to be decided by us is whether the ld. PCIT was justified in revising the assessment order u/s. 263 of the Act on the premise that the Assessing Officer did not examine and add the amount of commission to the income of the assessee for arranging bogus capital gains ? It is notable that for invoking the provisions of section 263, it is sine qua none to establish that the assessment order sought to be revise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
