9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ares were not of well known company and possibility of undisclosed income being introduced in the form of capital gain was not ruled out - case was clearly within the purview of exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction The observations of the Tribunal that since as many as 7 hearings had taken place and that the CIT could not have raised an objection to the manner of assessment, are unsustainable in law and not warranted by legal requirement under s. 263 of the Act for exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction. - in favour of the Revenue X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified and correct in law in cancelling the order of the CIT dt. 23rd Aug., 2006 passed under s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961?" 6. This appeal was tagged for consideration with IT Appeal No. 2 of 2008 wherein question of scope of jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act had been referred to a Full Bench. 7. The Full Bench considered the matter vide judgment dt. 7th Feb., 2012 [reported as CIT us. Jawahar Bhattacharjee (2012) 247 CTR (Gau)(FB) 473 : (2012) 67 DTR (Gau)(FB) 217--Ed.] and held that jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act could be exercised whenever it was found that the order of the assessment was erroneou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al jurisdiction may not be exercised, in latter it can certainly be exercised. Present case clearly falls in second category. Whether or not exercise of revisional jurisdiction was called for is a question of law, on a given fact situation." 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue is unable to assist the Court as he says that he is not ready. 10. In the present case, the assessee claimed capital gain arising out of sale of shares. The shares were purchased on 26th Sept., 2002 and sold on 18th Dec., 2003. As already mentioned above, the purchase of the shares was made at Rs. 5.52 per share and the same were sold at Rs. 99.50 per share after about 15 months. The shares belong to Sangotricons Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined by the AO. These enquiries were a must for obviating the possibility of secreted income having been introduced for acquiring real estate. In short, the genuineness of the transactions was not established in this case, which is the sine qua non for acceptance of the claim of deduction under s. 54F in a case like this." 11. The Tribunal held the same to be erroneous as follows:- "5. I have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused the material available on record. In this case, in response to notices issued under ss. 143(2) and 142(1), the assessee appeared and explained the return and claims made thereunder with details as called for. From the assessment order it is evident that there were as many as 7 hearings the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 114 CTR (Bom) 81 : (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom), CIT vs. Development Credit Bank Ltd. (2010) 40 DTR (Bom) 61 : (2010) 323 ITR 206 (Bom) and judgment of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Hindustan Marketing and Advertising Co. Ltd. (2012) 341 ITR 180 (Del) and judgment of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CIT vs. Unique Autofelts (P) Ltd. (2009) 30 DTR (PandH) 231. 13. We are of the view that the CIT was justified in exercising his jurisdiction under s. 263 of the Act and the Tribunal committed patent error of law. 14. It is well-settled that jurisdiction under s. 263 can be exercised whenever it is found that the order of the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Merely because a different view could be ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
