TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 018, however, as the income of the assessee as was originally returned by him was accepted by the AO vide his reassessment order, therefore, most probably for the said reason the assessee had not challenged the validity of the same by carrying the matter any further in appeal. Be that as it may, as the reassessment order passed by the AO under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 01.12.2018 is in itself based on invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO, therefore, the said material fact had rightly been pressed into service by the ld. AR for impressing upon us that a non-est assessment i.e, an assessment which has no sanctity of law could not have been revised by the Pr. CIT vide his order passed under Sec. 263. Now when the very foundation of the impugned revisional proceedings i.e, the reassessment order passed by the AO under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, dated 01.12.2018 is in itself based on an invalid assumption of jurisdiction by the AO and thus, not sustainable in the eyes of law, therefore, the Pr. CIT could not have assumed jurisdiction u/s 263 and validated the said reassessment order by restoring the same to the file of the AO with a direction to reassess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that was assumed by the AO for reopening of his case on the basis of misconceived reasons to believe . It was the claim of the assessee that he had not earned any exempt LTCG of ₹ 14.75 lac (supra) on sale of shares of M/s Comfort Intech Ltd., but had rather disclosed an income of ₹ 10,69,635/- on account of Short term capital gain (STCG) from sale of shares of the said scrip which was offered by him for tax in his return of income. Observing, that the aforesaid claim of the assessee was in order, the Assessing Officer vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act, dated 01.12.2018 accepted his returned income and did not make any addition as regards the issue on the basis of which his case was reopened by him. 3. After culmination of the reassessment proceedings the Pr. CIT called for the records of the assessee. Observing, that the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings had not verified the details of purchase and sale of shares, numbers of shares, copy of demat account which would have revealed the date on which shares were received by the assessee in his de-mat account, as well as not examined as to whether or not the assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G of ₹ 14.75 lac (supra) from sale of shares of M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd., but on contrary had disclosed an income of ₹ 10,69,635/- (supra) i.e STCG from sale of shares of the said scrip in his original return of income. Observing, that the aforesaid claim of the assessee was in order and STCG on sale of shares of M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd. of ₹ 10,69,635/-(supra) was duly credited by the assessee in his profit loss account for the year under consideration that was filed a/w his original return of income, the Assessing Officer found favor with the aforesaid claim of the assessee and accepted the income returned by him as such. 7. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, we are of the considered view, that as claimed by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, the very basis for reopening of the case of the assessee by the AO is found to be absolutely misconceived and incorrect. On a perusal of the reasons to believe which have purposively being culled out by us hereinabove, the case of the assessee was reopened for the reason that the bogus exempt LTCG of ₹ 14.75 lac (supra) shown by the assessee on sale of one lac shares of M/s. Comfort In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry verifications, viz. verifying the details of purchase and sales of shares; number of shares; copy of de-mat account which would have revealed the date on which shares were received by the assessee; as to whether the transaction in question was the only one transaction; as to how the shares offered vide right issues were purchased from the broker; a/w necessary verifications as regards the source of the purchases etc. had rendered the assessment order passed by him u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act, dated 01.12.2018 as erroneous in so far it was prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, we are afraid the same cannot be accepted. We, say so, for the reason that now when the very basis for reopening of the assessee s case under Sec. 147 of the Act is admittedly found to be incorrect or, in fact non-existent, then, the said fact would continue to remain so qua the jurisdiction assumed by the Pr. CIT to revise the said order in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. On the basis of our aforesaid observations, we are of the considered view that now when the very foundation for assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer is found to be misconceived and fal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
