2019 (7) TMI 744 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 - undisclosed long term capital gains with reference to sale of shares at assessment stage - scrutiny for the reasons of suspicious long term capital gains on shares - HELD THAT - A.O. in this case passed the assessment order under section 143(3) because the case was selected for scrutiny for the reasons of suspicious long term capital gains on shares. A.O. called for explanation of assessee and assessee filed reply time to time which are part of the record. The explanation of assessee is supported by all the evidences and material on record as to how the assessee has entered into sale and purchase of shares and how the sale consideration have been received by assessee through banking channel. The transaction was conducted through the Demat account. A.O. after making a deep investigation into the issue of long term capital gains also noted in the assessment order that written submissions of the assessee along with copies of Demat account, source of investment in shares, bank account, copies of share certificates, copy of account of Mathiyan Construction are placed on record. It would, therefore, prove that A.O. examined the issue of long term capital gains with reference to sale of shares at assessment stage in the light of evidence and material on record. Thus the reasons for which the case was selected for scrutiny have been satisfied by the A.O. As case was selected for scrutiny because the suspicious long term capital gains earned by assessee. This information must be based on information received from Investigation Wing. D.R. was not justified in contending that report of Investigation Wing have not been considered by the A.O. Since it was the sole reason for completing the scrutiny assessment, therefore, it could not be believed that A.O. would not have gone through the material available before him on record. May be the A.O. has not discussed the details in the assessment order but it would not give right to the Ld. Pr. CIT to hold that no investigation or enquiry have been made at assessment stage. It appears that A.O. has taken one of permissible view in the matter as per Law and if the Ld.Pr. CIT does not agree with the view of the A.O, the assessment order could not be treated as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment completed without proper examination by the Assessing Officer.
2. Notice issued under section 263 of the I.T. Act.
3. Assessee's challenge to the impugned order under section 263.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Assessment completed without proper examination by the Assessing Officer
The Assessee, an individual, filed a return of income showing long-term capital gains on shares. The case was selected for scrutiny due to suspicious gains. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) conducted inquiries, received submissions, and completed the assessment at the returned income. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) found the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests as the A.O. allegedly failed to make proper inquiries. The Pr. CIT set aside the assessment directing a fresh order.

Issue 2: Notice issued under section 263 of the I.T. Act
The Assessee explained before the Pr. CIT that detailed replies and evidences were submitted to the A.O. during assessment. The Pr. CIT invoked Section 263(1) based on inadequate inquiry despite the case being under scrutiny. The Pr. CIT found the A.O. did not utilize the Investigation Wing's report and did not inquire into specific issues, leading to the order being set aside.

Issue 3: Assessee's challenge to the impugned order under section 263
The Assessee challenged the Pr. CIT's order, arguing that all issues were duly examined by the A.O. and supported by documentary evidence. The Assessee contended that the Pr. CIT was imposing her view on the A.O.'s plausible findings. The Assessee cited legal precedents to support the argument that the A.O.'s assessment was correct. The Assessee maintained that the Pr. CIT failed to identify any errors in the A.O.'s order and did not conduct any independent inquiry, thus seeking the impugned order's dismissal.

The Appellate Tribunal, after considering submissions from both sides, found that the A.O. had conducted a thorough investigation into the issues raised during scrutiny. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. had examined the long-term capital gains issue with supporting evidence, and the reasons for scrutiny selection were adequately addressed. The Tribunal concluded that the A.O.'s assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue interests. Therefore, the impugned order under section 263 was set aside, and the original assessment order was restored.