9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l gains . The appellant cannot be blow hot and cold one hand say that the case was selected for limited scrutiny and on the other hand the issue was examined by the Ao. Thus, the contentions made in this behalf by the appellant are devoid of any merit. It can be safely concluded that the AO had failed to examine the genuineness of claim for exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. As no reasonable opportunity was given by the ld. PCIT during the course of proceedings before him - As the appellant could not demonstrate before us that the notice was received after expiry of the date of hearing of the proceedings u/s 263 - As established the fact that the shares of M/s. NCL Research Financial Services Ltd. were reported as penny stock by the In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 1, Aurangabad [ the PCIT ] dated 22.03.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 972 days in filing the present appeal. The appellant has filed an affidavit dated 14.01.2022 stating the following averments :- 1. The revision order dated 22-03-2019 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Aurangabad was received on 22-03-2019. Accordingly the appeal was required to be filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal by 21-05- 2019. 2. The appeal however has been filed on 17-01-2022. In this way there is a delay of 972 in filing of the appeal. The. Hon'ble Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elay is absolutely unintentional and is due to the bonafide reasons. It is further submitted that the assessee has not obtained any undue benefit because of the delay in filing the return of income. Whatever is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. 3. Considering the averments made in the affidavit, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was prevented from causing the appearance before the ld. CIT(A) on account of difficulties faced by the appellant on account of Covid-19 Pandemic, the Hon ble Supreme Court taking the cognizance of the difficulty faced by the country extended the various limitations prescribed under the Statute. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it is fit case for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rests of the Revenue , as the Assessing Officer had failed to verify the genuineness of claim for exemption under the head long term capital gains in respect of M/s. NCL Research Financial Services Ltd.. Despite several opportunities given by the ld. PCIT to the appellant, the appellant had chosen not to respond to the show cause notice. In the circumstances, the ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order with a direction to re-do the assessment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. It is submitted that the ld. PCIT had not granted reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant while passing the impugned order. It is further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of CIT vs. Max India Ltd., 295 ITR 282 (SC). The error in the assessment order should be one that it is not debatable or plausible view. In a case where the Assessing Officer examined the claim took one of the plausible views, the assessment order cannot be termed as an erroneous . 10. In the present case, the appellant took a plea that the issue was examined by the Assessing Officer, but preliminary objection taken before us is that the case was selected for limited scrutiny, therefore, the question of examination of issue of genuineness of claim for exemption u/s 10(38) does not arise. The submission made by the assessee is contrary to the material on record. The appellant filed a copy of the scrutiny notice placed at page no.35 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvolved in the penny stock. 12. As regards to the argument that the ld. PCIT was not clear in his finding, therefore, the order should be declared null and void, cannot be accepted for the reason that the ld. PCIT has only set-aside the assessment to re-do the assessment after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, since this issue was not examined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. We also make it clear that even the information received after the completion of assessment constitutes a part of the record for initiation of proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. In light of above discussions, the ratio of the judgement of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj, 446 ITR 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
