9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s long term capital gain. Without going by the length of the order, there is not even a whisper that an enquiry was held with regard to the long term capital gain what to say about recording of satisfaction. The contention of assessee that it was a case of change of opinion or case of inadequate enquiry is not well founded. There is no enquiry at all by the Assessing Officer, there is no question of change of opinion. The information which was with the Assessing Officer from the Investigation Wing was not examined and the transaction was not verified. There was material on record before the PCIT that the tax leviable was not imposed as the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind while allowing exemption of long term capital gain. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, there being an information from the Investigation Wing about suspicious long term capital gain on shares, the case was selected for scrutiny. Notice along with questionnaire was issued, information/documents and evidence were taken on record and order dated 24.2.2016 was passed. It would be relevant to produce the assessment order in toto: Return declaring total income amounting to ₹ 16,36,340/- was e-filed by the assessee on 29.9.2014, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the returned income. The assessee is a partner in a Firm dealing in Petroleum Products and derives income from rent, share trading and interest during the year under consideration. Later on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16,36,340/- ADD:- Addition as discussed in para 2 above: ₹ 44,148/- Total Income assessed: ₹ 16,80,490/- Assessed. Issue requisite documents. The proceedings were initiated under Section 263 of the Act and notice was issued on 13.12.2017. There was long term capital gain of ₹ 10,99,599/-, claimed by the assessee as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee took a stand before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (for short, 'PCIT') that the Assessing Officer had conducted the enquiries and passed the assessment order, therefore invoking of Section 263 of the Act is bad. The contention was rejected. Vide order dated 28.2.2018, the order of assessment was set aside and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of the assessee or any other person. In the present case, a cursory look at the assessment order is good enough to hold the same to be erroneous. There was a specific information provided to the Assessing Officer about suspicious long term capital gain. Without going by the length of the order, there is not even a whisper that an enquiry was held with regard to the long term capital gain what to say about recording of satisfaction. The contention of learned counsel for the assessee that it was a case of change of opinion or case of inadequate enquiry is not well founded. There is no enquiry at all by the Assessing Officer, there is no question of change of opinion. The information which was with the Assessing Offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
