9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to his query by some other explanation offered by the Appellant. In fact, merely asking a question which goes to the root of the matter and not carrying it further is a case of nonenquiry, if the query is not otherwise satisfied while responding to another query. In the present facts, the question raised has not been responded to by some explanation which would render the enquiry commenced, futile. In fact, the CIT in his order dated 20th March, 2002 specifically exercised powers under Section 263 of the Act on the basis that the necessary information was not furnished by the Appellant in support of its claim nor the Assessing Officer enquired into the same. Thus, this is a case of nonenquiry and not inadequate enquiry. Therefore, the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 614000 2,45,60,000 30,46,250 Mayo (I) Ltd. (unquoted) 300000 1,50,00,000 300000 30,00,000 ()1,20,00,000 The Assessing Officer after accepting the loss held that the same could be carried forward to be set off against speculation profits. The Assessing Officer thus by an Assessment Order dated 24th February, 2000 assessed that Appellant to 'Nil Income'. 4 Thereafter on 31st January, 2002, the Commissioner of Income Tax [CIT] issued a show cause notice under Section 263 of the Act. By the above notice, the Appellant was called upon to show cause why the order of Assessment dated 24th February, 2000 should not be Revised as it was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. This to the exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be found fault with for the reasons that the Assessing Officer had not carried the necessary exercise to find out basis of valuation of shares for purchase of shares at ₹ 50/per share and for sale of shares at ₹ 10/per share on the same date making the Assessment Order erroneous in law. Further, the order is also prejudicial to the interest of Revenue to the extent it allow the said loss to the extent of ₹ 1.20 Crores. Thus, the appeal of the AppellantAssessee was dismissed. 8 In support of the Appeal, Mr. Gopal, learned Counsel appearing for the AppellantAssessee submits that the exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act by the CIT(A) is without jurisdiction. This for the reason that the Assessing Officer had enqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the letter dated 12th January, 2000 namely method of valuation of unlisted shares. The Appellant's response was only that the unquoted shares are valued at costs. This is begging the question. No method of valuation of the shares was submitted to the Assessing Officer during the proceedings, leading to the Assessment Order dated 24th February, 2000. It is, therefore, to be noted that the Assessing Officer after having asked a pertinent question of the method of valuing unlisted shares in his letter dated 12th January, 2000 did not pursue that line of enquiry. The required information was not furnished by the Appellant nor any explanation offered for not furnishing the same. It is also not a case where the Assessing Officer was satisfied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
