9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er referred to as the Pr CIT) erred in framing an order dated 28.01.2021 under section 263 of the Act to set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer - 17(1)(1) Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) by holding that the assessment order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and consequently, directing the Assessing Officer to frame the order of assessment de novo. The 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the provision u/s.263 of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 5. All these issues are in connection with the reopening of the assessment of the assessee in view of the provision u/s.263 of the Act. The basic contention is that the Assessing Officer added a long term capital gain of Rs. 47,37,582/- on account of sale of penny stock however, the ld. PCIT is of the view that the whole-sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 49,52,450/- 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 exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e declared gross sale receipt of the shares. The immunity is granted to the assessee to the extent ITA NO. 3001/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) declaration is made under IDS 2016 and not against the entire transaction. The PCIT invoked revisional jurisdiction to tax the difference between gross sale price of the shares Rs. 34,30,000/- and Long Term Capital Gains declared by the assessee Rs. 32,86,815/-In other words, the PCIT seeks to tax even the purchase cost of the shares i.e. Rs. 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 Securitie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities 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 PCIT wrongly assumed revisional jurisdiction. 5.2. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is quite clear that the fact of the present case is quite similar to the fact of the case under consideration. Taking into all these facts, we are of the view that the revision of assessment u/s.263 is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
