9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 686X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d quashed the order passed by the Ld. Pr.CIT. In our considered view the facts in the present case applicable mutatis mutandis to the above case. Therefore, we set aside the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 808/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) - - - Dated:- 16-12-2021 - SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal Department by: Shri Sunil Jha ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 19, Mumbai [hereinafter in short Pr.CIT ] dated 24.03.2021 for the A.Y.2015-16. 2. Brief facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire sale consideration of ₹ 6,72,41,315/- ought to have been held as unexplained investment/income from other sources and no deduction on account of purchase cost of ₹ 24,00,000/- ought to have been allowed, though the Assessing Officer inadvertently allowed the purchase cost. Similarly, commission @3% on ₹ 6,72,41,315/- which works out to ₹ 20,17,239/ought to have been held as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act instead of ₹ 19,45,240/-. Omission to do so, resulted in underassessment of income to the tune of ₹ 24,79,999/- [₹ 24,00,000 + ₹ 71,999/-]. Ld. Pr.CIT observed that this aspect was overlooked during the assessment proceedings and the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dated 18.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and producing any evidences in this regard. 4. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: - The Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-19, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Pr CIT) erred in framing an order dated 24.03.2021 under section 263 of the Act to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Officer-18(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) by holding that the assessment order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and consequently, directing the Assessing Officer to pass the order afr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. AR relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Mrs.Manisha Ajay Shah v. Principal CIT in ITA.No. 3001/Mum/2019 dated 14.10.2020. 6. Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the Ld. Pr.CIT. 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed on identical situation when once the Assessing Officer has issued questionnaire and specific information was sought on transactions and assessee furnished the details as called for and assessee has filed all the details of purchase of shares which is through banking channel. Once the issue is addressed by the assessee to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, in this scenario, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Manisha Ajay Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m-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 amount paid by the assessee for purchase of shares has travelled back to the assessee in the form of cash or any other manner. 6. The provisions of section 263 of the Act can be invoked if, the twin conditions mandated under the section are satisfied, i.e: (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. If any one of these two condit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
