TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. - ITA No.1982/MUM/2021 - - - Dated:- 29-9-2022 - Shri Baskaran Br, Accountant Member And Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri.Nishit Gandhi.AR For the Respondent : Shri.Mahesh Akhade.DR ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr.CIT)-30 passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[ in short the Act ]. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR has submitted the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Hon ble Tribunal and explained the reasons due Covid-19 Pandemic and the filling was delayed and relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in respect of e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax by way of a declaration made under the Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 [ IDS ] after paying applicable taxes at the rate of 45% of the said gain and the Ld. PCIT has himself accepted the said declaration under IDS; (iii) Even otherwise, no prejudice is caused to the revenue since the tax paid on the total gain of Rs. 12,49,7407- at Rs.5,62,4007- under IDS is more than the tax on the entire sale value of Rs. 14,03,2507- at Rs.4,76,9657-(inclusive of surcharge and education cess) under the normal provisions of the Act; and; (iv) In any case, it appears that the Ld. Assessing Officer has in passing the assessment order dated 30.06.2017 merely arrived at the correct taxable income, a course permissible in law and hence such an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order under Section 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act dated 26.02.2017. 4. The Pr.CIT on perusal of the facts and the record, find that the assessee against the long term capital gains (LTCG), has declared the same amount under income declaration scheme (IDS)2016 and paid the taxes. Whereas, the Pr.CIT has observed that the total sale value of the shares is Rs.14,30,250/- after deducting purchase value of Rs.1,53,510/- the assessee has declared the long term capital gains of Rs.12,49,740/- Therefore, the Pr,CIT is of the opinion that the assessee should not be allowed deduction for purchase price of shares as it was purchased from undisclosed income and the entire sale proceeds should have been declared by the assessee underIDS2016 and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has failed to examine the transaction of purchase and sale of shares. Another reason for invoking revisional jurisdiction by the PCIT is, that the assessee in IDS 2016 has only declared long term capital gain on penny stock, whereas, the assessee should have declared gross sale receipt of the shares. The immunity is granted to the assessee to the extent 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee 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 PCIT wrongly assumed revisional jurisdiction. 8. In vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|