9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 832X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the PCIT action cannot be acceptable as the order passed by the A.O. does not satisfy the twin conditions of erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly we do not find any merits in the order and we set aside the order u/s 263 passed by the Pr.CIT and allow the grounds of appeal of in favour of the assessee. - ITA No. 516/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2013-14) - - - Dated:- 24-2-2022 - SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by: Mr.Neelkanth Khandelwal.AR Respondent by: Mr.Rakesh Garg, CIT DR ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the Principle Commissioner of Income Tax(PCIT)-20, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresenting the purchase price of shares incurred in the earlier year. 5. The Appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Pr.CIT lacks jurisdiction to pass the impugned order inasmuch as the Assessing Officer on the basis of same material has made addition, which is a subject matter of appeal to the CIT[A] , and thus, the order of the Assessing Officer will merge with the order of the CIT[A] on the same subject matter. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter and/or amend the aforestated ground of appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of shares. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and issued notice u/s 263 of the Act. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the details referred at Para 4 of the PCIT order. The PCIT considered the reply filed by the assessee in compliance to the show cause notices issued. The PCIT is of the opinion that the A.O has not dealt on the transactions of purchase of shares and has not conduct any enquiry on the disputed issue. Therefore the entire sale proceeds on transactions of shares should be treated as part of sale consideration and commission transactions has to be verified and set aside the assessment order and directed the assessing officer to frame fresh assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of sale of shares and was not satisfied with the submissions and made addition u/sec68 of the Act. We find that the Hon ble Tribunal in the similar issue in the case of Akshy Ramprasad Agarwal VS ITO in ITA No. 153/Mum/2021 dated 08.10.2021 has dealt on the issue of validity of revision order u/sec 263 of the Act at page3 Para 5.1 of the order, which is read as under: 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 already been raised by the Assessing Officer and thereafter, the claim of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. 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 amount paid by the assessee for purchase of shares has travelled back to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, 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. Therefore, we set aside the same and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. We find that the facts of the present case are identical and similar to the ratio of the judicial decision. We find that the assessee has complied with the statutory notice u/sec148 and 142(1) of the Act and the show cause notice. The submissions of the Ld. AR are realistic duly supported with the material information and judicial decisions. We Considering the overall facts, circumstances, ratio of the jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
