9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 203 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 - difference in share valuation - loss on sale of shares - HELD THAT - CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act based on the audit objections,which was with regard to a variation in value of shares.The assessee had filed an explanation on this variation. This Explanation is not doubted by Pr. CIT. When the Explanation is not rejected nor found fault with by the Pr. CIT, it cannot be said that there is an error in the order of the AO which is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.In our view, the assessee has properly explained the difference in value of shares. Just because Audit has raised an objection, the assessment order does not become erroneous to the extent it is prejudicial to the Revenue. On the issue of loss sustained by the assessee on the sale of shares of M/s. Ankit Metal Power, the AO had disallowed the loss and hence it cannot be a ground for making a revision u/s 263 of the Act. The disallowance of this loss was made on enquiry and this disallowance is not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. On the issue of loans and advances taken by the assessee for purchase of property, the AO made independent enquiries by issuing notice u/s 133(6) of the Act and thereafter accepted the replies after examining them. The Pr. CIT has not pointed out as to what is the error committed by the AO in accepting the replies from various parties. Without pointing out any defects, it cannot be said that there is an error which caused prejudice to the interest of the Revenue. This is not a case of lack of enquiry or non-application of mind. The AO has made an enquiry and has taken a plausible view on the issues. As relying on SPECTRA SHARES SCRIPS PVT. LTD 2013 (6) TMI 173 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT , JYOTI FOUNDATION 2013 (7) TMI 483 - DELHI HIGH COURT and DG HOUSING PROJECTS LTD 2012 (3) TMI 227 - DELHI HIGH COURT we hold that the revision is bad in law. Hence the order passed by the Pr. CIT u/s 263 of the Act is quashed.- Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the revision under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's (AO) enquiry and application of mind. 3. Explanation of the difference in share valuation. 4. Disallowance of loss on sale of shares. 5. Verification of loans and advances for property purchase. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Revision under Section 263: The assessee challenged the legality of the revision initiated by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Pr. CIT based the revision on an audit objection regarding a share difference value of ?7,92,054/-. The assessee contended that the Pr. CIT cannot proceed solely based on an audit objection without applying his own mind, citing various case laws such as Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, CIT vs. Sohana Woollen Mills, and CIT vs. D.N. Dosani. 2. Adequacy of the AO's Enquiry and Application of Mind: The Pr. CIT argued that the AO did not conduct adequate enquiries regarding the differences in share value, losses on the sale of shares, and the nexus between losses and loans/advances received. The assessee countered that the AO had conducted necessary enquiries and accepted the explanations provided, thus there was no lack of enquiry or non-application of mind. 3. Explanation of the Difference in Share Valuation: The assessee explained the difference in share valuation as a typographical error in the Tax Audit Report. The Pr. CIT did not reject or find fault with this explanation. The Tribunal held that when the explanation is not doubted by the Pr. CIT, it cannot be said that there is an error in the AO's order prejudicial to the Revenue. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had properly explained the difference in share value. 4. Disallowance of Loss on Sale of Shares: The AO had disallowed the loss incurred on the sale of shares of M/s. Ankit Metal & Power. The Pr. CIT argued that the AO failed to establish the nexus between this loss and the loans/advances received for property purchase. The Tribunal found that the AO had conducted enquiries and made the disallowance, thus it cannot be a ground for revision under Section 263. The disallowance was not prejudicial to the Revenue. 5. Verification of Loans and Advances for Property Purchase: The AO issued notices under Section 133(6) to various parties from whom the assessee had taken advances and accepted their replies after examination. The Pr. CIT did not point out any specific errors in the AO's acceptance of these replies. The Tribunal held that without pointing out defects, it cannot be said that there is an error causing prejudice to the Revenue. The AO had made a plausible view based on the enquiries conducted. Conclusion: The Tribunal applied various legal principles and case laws to conclude that the revision under Section 263 was not justified. The AO had conducted necessary enquiries and applied his mind to the issues at hand. The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.
|
