TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. PCIT has no power to revise the assessment on the ground of lack of enquiry. In our considered view this is not a case of wrong assumption of facts or incorrect application of law and therefore the revisionary powers have been invalidly exercised. PCIT cannot exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act where the AO has taken a plausible view on the basis evidences filed by the assessee which is not contrary to law and facts. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.419/Kol/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) - - - Dated:- 10-12-2021 - SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Sudipta Guha, CIT (DR). ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act dated 29.05.2020 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the PCIT] relevant to AY 2015-16. 2. The assessee has challenged the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by Ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act and also the consequent order passed u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that revis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee claimed interest payment made to loan creditor under the head of income from business which is not allowable. However, the officer allowed the interest on loan in violation to section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. 4. In the previous year, the assessee had taken loan of ₹ 50 lakhs 30 lakhs from two companies viz. Lily Vintrade (P) Ltd. and Mountview Dealmark (P) Ltd. But no verification was made . 4. In reply to the show notice, the assessee filed written submissions alongwith details/evidences explaining that the issues proposed to be raised in the show cause notice have been examined by the AO during assessment proceedings and only after carrying out a detailed examination and verification, a plausible and possible view was taken and accordingly the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The Ld. PCIT after taking into account, the written submissions and arguments of the Ld. AR revised the assessment framed u/s 143(3) by the AO vide order passed u/s 263 dated 23.03.2020 by directing the AO to verify these issues and frame the assessment afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 5. At the outset, the learned counsel of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urse of assessment proceedings and a plausible view has been taken. The Ld. AR submitted that this is not a case of lack of enquiry and, therefore, the assessment already framed by the assessee after taking into account all the evidences and explanations offered during the course of assessment proceedings cannot disturbed by exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. The Ld. AR relied on the series of decisions of coordinate benches which are as under: 1. M/s. Sethia Finance Trading Co. vs ACIT, Circle-45, Kolkata vide ITA No. 783/Kol/2013. 2. M/s. Rupayan Udyog vs CIT, Kol-XVII vide ITA No. 1073/Kol/2012. 3. Shri Manish Chirania vs Pr. CIT-15, Kolkata vide ITA No. 1161/Kol/2019. 4. M/s. Sinhotia Metals Minerals Pvt. Ltd. vs PCIT, Durgapur vide ITA No. 889/Kol/2017. 5. M/s. Patron Ninimay Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, Ward-10(4), Kolkata vide ITA No. 1614/Kol/2019. 6. M/s. Ganapati Tradewings Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, Ward-1(4), Kolkata vide ITA No. 2651/Kol/2019. 7. M/s. Khetawat Properties Ltd. vs PCIT, Kolkata vide ITA No. 578/Kol/2019. 8. M/s. Kaushalya Dealers Pvt. Ltd. 7. The Ld. AR therefore, submitted that in view of the various decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions were made by the AO assessment framed u/s 263 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Accordingly we are not adjudicating the validity of jurisdiction of PCIT on these three issues. The issue raised in respect of loss of penny stock, we observe on perusal of records produced before us that the AO has specifically called for details of purchase and sale of shares during the original assessment proceedings and the assessee has furnished the details of sale and purchase of shares, proofs payment of STT, copy of DMat statement, copy of bank statement evidencing the payment for purchase of shares and receipt of sale consideration into the assessee s bank account through banking channels. We note that the AO has framed the assessment only after taking into account the above aforesaid details. Therefore, simply because the order does not speak or discuss about the loss on sale of shares should not be taken to mean that AO has not examined the details by the assessee or has not applied his mind to the details and there was complete lack of enquiry. In opinion the AO has take a possible view after taking into account the evidences filed by the assessee which are part of records and therefore the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
