9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was never supplied to the assessee. Assessee all along denied having made any such affidavit that aforesaid income was declared under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. However, the copy of the affidavit, stated to be in assessment records, was never confronted to the assessee to controvert his submissions. Mere suspicion could not be a ground to invoke jurisdiction u/s 263. There is no adequate material on record which would demonstrate the fulfillment of both the conditions to demonstrate that the order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.- Revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 could not be sustained - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.3740/Mum/2019 - - - Dated:- 11-9-2020 - Shri Mahavir Singh, VP And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, AM For the Assessee : Shri Shashi Tulsiyan-Ld.AR For the Revenue : Shri Rahul Raman-Ld. CIT-DR ORDER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee contest correctness of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 as exercised by Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-22, Mumbai, for Assessment Year 2014-15, vide order dated 26/03/2019. The grounds raised by the assessee re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, documents, evidences for which he has issued Notice under section 263 of the Act were already on the records of the Department. Further, the Order of learned CIT u/s.263 specifies that 'it was explained to the AR of that the AO had never examined the details furnished regarding Capital Gains claimed on SRK shares and the issue was side stepped because of the information of the Assessee filing under IDS'; which clearly conveys that the initiation of revision proceedings by the learned CIT is merely for the review and re- examination of the material already on the record, which is not permissible as per the provisions of section 263 of the Act. 8. In the view of above, the Order of the learned CIT be quashed, by holding it to be bad in law. C. REVISION OF ASSESSMENT NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARDING A PARTICULAR CLAIM: 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in invoking Section 263 in respect of claim of Long Term Capital Gain exemption on shares of SRK Industries Ltd. on the ground that the same was not discussed in the Assessment Order u/s.143( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout proper application of mind to as regards the facts, details and documents furnished and contentions raised by the Appellant in the proceedings. 19. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT erred in initiating proceedings u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that Appellant's case was selected for scrutiny to verify TDS on immovable property u/s.194IA and no detail or explanation in this regard was available on the file. However, there is no purchase of property by the Appellant in the captioned year; and hence the entire basis of initiating proceedings u/s.263 of the Act in Appellant's case is incorrect, without application of mind and examination of details. 20. In the communications of proceedings u/s.263, the following inconsistencies/ discrepancies are evident: i. The Quantity of shares of SRK Industries Ltd. is stated at 44,000/- whereas the correct figure is 44,400; ii. Appellants replies dated 19 ' March 2019 and 25 ' March 2019 not considered before passing the Order u/s.263 of the Act dated 26! March 2019; iii. Despite submitting complete, details on merits regarding the Appellant's claim of Long Ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hs. 3.1 Upon perusal of material on record, it is found that the quantum assessment for year under consideration was framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) on 06/12/2016 accepting returned income of ₹ 10.09 Lacs efiled by the assessee on 15/12/2014. It is apparent from assessment order that notice u/s 142(1) was issued along with questionnaire dated 10/05/2016. Various details were called which were duly submitted and placed on record. These details include notes and explanations on the issues that came up for discussion during the course of hearing. Finally, no additions / disallowances were proposed by Ld. AO in the quantum assessment order. The assessee being resident individual derived income from salary and other sources. In its computation of income, it reflected Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of ₹ 79.05 Lacs on sale of certain shares, which were claimed exempt u/s 10(38). 3.2 During the course of regular assessment proceedings, the assessee, vide submissions dated 28/11/2016, filed complete details of computation of LTCG. The choronology of the events which gave rise to LTCG were enumerated in the said submissions. The copies of purchase bills, bank passbook evidencin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied having made any affidavit or commitment to declare income under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016. Therefore, the assessee pleaded for dropping of proceedings u/s 263. 3.5 However, not convinced with assessee s submissions, the assessment order was termed as erroneous and prejudicial to revenue in terms of Explanation-2 to Sec. 263. Finally, the order was set-aside and Ld.AO was directed to redo the assessment after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Aggrieved as aforesaid, the assessee is under further appeal before us. 4. Upon careful consideration of factual matrix as enumerated in preceding paragraphs, it is quite evident that there was proper disclosure of exempt LTCG in assessee s computation of income. The transactions were duly explained by the assessee with requisite documentary evidences during the course of regular assessment proceedings. The assessment order takes note of the fact that various details were called from assessee which were duly submitted and placed on record. These details include notes and explanations on the issues that came up for discussion during the course of hearing. Therefore, it could be concluded that there was due applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
