9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turned to it during the year and has evidenced/substantiated the same with copy of ledger account of M/s Abhilash Pvt. Ltd. and also the bank statement of the assessee reflecting the transaction. There is no iota of doubt, therefore, that the issue which was required to be examined during assessment proceedings was duly replied to by the assessee and substantiated with evidence and the AO, it can be unhesitatingly said, was rightly satisfied with the reply of the assessee. No anomaly in the replies filed by the assessee has been pointed out, by the Ld. Pr.CIT.to cast any doubt on the nature of the transaction Only grievance is that the AO had not inquired into the nature of the business activities carried out by M/s Crownstar Ltd. This error pointed out by the Ld. Pr.CIT, we find, is totally misplaced. First and foremost this was not the purpose for the limited scrutiny assessment, which only required the AO to inquire whether the investment were duly disclosed. The AO having examined the same, he was not required to go beyond the stated purpose. The assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous therefore for not having examined an issue which it was not required to. Even o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el for the assessee stated that he shall be dealing with the facts in the case of Kamal Oswal in ITA No.65/Chd/2021 for making his arguments and stated that the facts in the remaining two appeals were identical. The Ld. DR fairly admitted to the same though pointed out that the only difference in the facts related to the date of investments made by different assesses though all admittedly made in the same year. 3. We have heard both the parties. As transpires from the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT, the jurisdiction to revise the order of the AO was assumed by the Ld. Pr.CIT on finding from a perusal of the assessment record that the AO had failed to make due inquiries relating to the investments made by the assessee in the shares of a company of United Kingdom, M/s Crownstar Ltd., during the year. The investment amounted to ₹ 66,63,028/-. The contents of show cause notice issued to the assessee dated 01.03.2021 as reproduced in the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT as under: 2.3 That on the perusal of the record it is revealed that during the year under consideration i.e. AY 2016-17, you have invested ₹ 66,63,028/-28/- in the shares of M/s Crownstar Ltd. of United Kingdom. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the issue needing examination, placed at Paper Book page Nos.25 26 b) replies filed by the assessee dated 02.08.2018 and 20.12..2017, placed at Paper Book page Nos.27 to 30 30-A to 30-O containing the aforesaid replies of the assessee as also necessary documents evidencing the disclosure of investment in M/s Crownstar Ltd. in the Balance Sheet of the assessee, in the income tax return and c) the source of investment being return of loan from M/s Abhilash Growth Pvt. Ltd. evidenced by copy of ledger account of the said company and also copy of bank statement of the assessee reflecting the receipt of the same from Abhilash Growth Pvt. Ltd. and its immediate utilization for the purpose of investment by the assessee in M/s Crownstar Ltd. 6. Besides the Ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that it had also been stated to the Ld. Pr.CIT that no income had been earned from the said investment and to this end our attention was drawn to the reply of the assessee stating so placed at Paper Book page No.44. His contention, therefore, was that the issue of investment made by the assessee in a company outside India was the limited purpose for framing the assessment, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee, therefore, stated that the issue requiring examination in the limited scrutiny assessment proceedings had been replied to the satisfaction of the AO by the assessee not only for the impugned year but also in the preceding and succeeding years and had been accepted in the said years also. He, therefore, stated that there was no reason to hold any error having crept in the order of the AO by way of non-examination of the issue of investment in M/s Crownstar Ltd.. He, further stated the Ld. Pr.CIT has found the order erroneous since the AO had failed to examine the business activities of M/s Crownstar Ltd., which he pointed out, the assessee had explained the nature of business activities carried out by M/s Crownstar Ltd. in the assessment proceedings relating to assessment year 2017-18 as indulging in the trading in bonds, equity as well as financial security of all types. Our attention was drawn to Paper Book page No.44 being the reply of the assessee dated 02.08.2019 in assessment proceedings for assessment year 2017-18 stating the above facts. He, therefore, stated that the nature of business activities of M/s Crownstar Ltd. was also part of rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing from loan given by it to M/s Abhilash Growth Pvt. Ltd. returned to it during the year and has evidenced/substantiated the same with copy of ledger account of M/s Abhilash Pvt. Ltd. and also the bank statement of the assessee reflecting the transaction. There is no iota of doubt, therefore, that the issue which was required to be examined during assessment proceedings was duly replied to by the assessee and substantiated with evidence and the AO, it can be unhesitatingly said, was rightly satisfied with the reply of the assessee. No anomaly in the replies filed by the assessee has been pointed out, by the Ld. Pr.CIT.to cast any doubt on the nature of the transaction The only grievance is that the AO had not inquired into the nature of the business activities carried out by M/s Crownstar Ltd. This error pointed out by the Ld. Pr.CIT, we find, is totally misplaced. First and foremost this was not the purpose for the limited scrutiny assessment, which only required the AO to inquire whether the investment were duly disclosed. The AO having examined the same, he was not required to go beyond the stated purpose. The assessment order cannot be said to be erroneous therefore for not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
