9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1498X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly appears that the Assessee is well acquainted with the investment in shares and regularly investing in the share market and sold the shares when the price of the shares were increased substantially. Nowhere from the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act, it appears that the Assessee has ever paid any commission/expenses as alleged by the PCIT for obtaining the said bogus LTCG. Considering in totality specifically the statement of the Assessee recorded by the AO u/s 131 of the Act as re-produced in the original assessment order and the fact that the main/larger issue/addition on the basis of which the Ld. PCIT has alleged that the Assessee has paid commission, is pending for adjudication before the Ld. CIT (A), we are inclined to set a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the bogus LTCG, after conducting all necessary enquiries and verifications as circumstances warrant in this case and after giving sufficient opportunity to the Assessee of being heard before the passing a speaking order. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us. The Assessee at the outset submitted that according to the judgment passed by the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip vs. Income Tax Officer-XV, Chenai (2019) 101 taxmann.com 119 (Madras) wherein it was held that where the larger issue was pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) then the Commissioner could not exercise powers u/s 263 of the Act on account of statutory bar and therefore the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is unsus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the order passed by the Commissioner u/s 263 of the Act. 5. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the appeal against the main addition of Rs.4,52,57,410/- on account of disallowance of LTCG is pending before the CIT(Appeals) and therefore in view of the decision rendered by the Hon ble High Court in the case of Smt. Renuka Philip (supra) wherein it was held that the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act on a smaller issue, based on the larger issue is un-sustainable, the impugned order is un-sustainable . 5.1 Even from the statement and relevant answers given by the Assessee, it clearly appears that the Assessee is well acquainted with the investment in shares and regularly investing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
