9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king of short term capital gain/long term capital gain. The assessee furnished a detailed reply to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein the assessee while replying to the query on transaction of shares, informed that a declaration under IDS 2016 has been made in respect of long term capital gain arising on sale of shares to GCM Securities Ltd. Ostensibly, the Assessing Officer after examining the documents accepted the same and made no addition. Merely for the reason that the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view after examining the records that is not acceptable to the PCIT, would not make the assessment order erroneous. In the present case twin conditions set out in section 263 are not satisfied and hence, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant contends that the Pr CIT has not appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety; the impugned order under section 263 is bad in law inasmuch as the assessment order of the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The appellant further., contends that the Pr CIT ought not to have reached the aforesaid conclusion inasmuch as her conclusion is based on the same material which has been considered by the Assessing Officer to make the addition in his assessment order, and thus, the impugned order passed by the Pr CIT under section 263 is bad in law. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Pr CIT lacks jurisdiction to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,450/- should be considered. We observed that while completing the assessment in view of provisions u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued a notice stating the reason as under:- There is enough reason to believe that not only the claim of exemption under section 10(38) by the assessee is prima facie bogus but by making such bogus claim, the assessee has clearly failed to disclose all material facts for determination of income. 5.1. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment in view of provision u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act raising the addition on account of long term capital gain in sum of ₹ 47,37,582/-. It is argued by the ld. representative of the assessee that once the issue has a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he shares i.e. ₹ 1,43,185/- stating it to be a bogus purchase transaction. 5. After examining the documents on record we do not concur with the view of the PCIT. The assessee has demonstrated from the bank statement that the amount has been paid for purchase of shares of GCM Securities Ltd. through cheque. This is further corroborated by share application form of GCM Securities at page 22 of the Paper Book and transaction-cum-holding statement in the case of assessee issued by Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. at page 19 of the Paper Book. The documents furnished by the assessee clearly indicates that the shares were indeed purchased by the assessee through banking transactions. It is not the case of the Revenue that the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
