9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 907X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appeal: "1.1 The Order U/s.263 passed on 23-03-2024 by Pr.CIT.Ahmedabad-1, A'bad (for short Pr.CIT) for AY 2014-15 holding that the order of assessment u/s 147 rws 144B passed on 29.03.2022 by AO accepting the LTCG on sale of shares of Looks Health Services Ltd. (short 'LHSL') was genuine and the appellant was entitled to exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Id. Pr. CIT has grievously erred in law and or on facts in holding that the order of assessment u/s 147 rws 144B passed on 29.03.2022 by AO accepting the LTCG on sale of shares of Looks Health Services Ltd. (short 'LHSL') Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act was in relation to a scrip which was found to be a penny stock and bogus. The alleged scrip, treated as penny stock by the department, is the scrip of Looks Health Services Ltd. ("LHSL" for short), which the assessee had sold during the year and earned capital gains thereon to the tune of Rs. 1,02,18,980/-, having sold the same for a value of Rs. 1,07,90,400/-.No addition however was made on account of the same in the order passed under section 147 of the Act. The ld.Pr.CIT found the order passed to be erroneous so as to cause prejudice to the Revenue on the same issue and accordingly passed order u/s 263 of the Act. 5. Having gone through the order of the ld.Pr.CIT, we have failed to find any spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a consequence exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. 8. Now what the ld.Pr.CIT has done in his order under section 263 of the Act is that in para-5, from page no.2 to 7 of his order, he has reproduced the entire contents of the information contained in the inside portal of the department. And it is all scanned version. What transpires from that information or what is gist of the information, is not mentioned in any where in his order. Despite the same, after going through it, what it appears is that, it merely showed that the Department was in possession of information that the assessee had traded in a scrip "LHSL" during the impugned year which departmental investigation had revealed to be a bogus penny stock. The portal also contains g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the assessment order has resulted in short levy of taxes/revenue. Therefore, the impugned assessment order passed by the A.O. is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order is set aside and the A.O. is directed to pass fresh assessment order by making addition u/s 68 rws 115BBE of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,02,18,9807- (or to the extent of bogus LTCG claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act from penny stock scrip of Looks Health Services Ltd.). 7.1 In view of the fact of the case and ruling of Hon'ble Supreme court, it is clear that the assessment order is passed by the A.O., without making proper examination of the issues mentioned above. The Assessing Officer has faile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee vide various notices issued, and due reply was filed of the same. He pointed out that in the various replies filed, the assessee had pointed out that - * these shares of LSHL were purchased by him in A.Y 12-13, much prior to sale in the impugned year i.e A.Y 14-15. * That the shares were acquired in Private Placement allotment under Promoters quota having one of the terms of allotment that the shares will remain in lock in period of 1 year from the date of allotment. * Payment for purchase of shares was made through banking channels and the shares were held in DEMAT form. * That out of 25,000 shares purchased only 24800 were sold. * That the shares had been purchased @ face value of Rs. 10/- and after 3 months the company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade by the assessee, and we find that the AO has, during the assessment proceedings raised every possible query on the information available in the insight portal and the assessee did respond to the same. The ld.DR before us was unable to point out, which query remained to be answered by the assessee or which inquiry was not conducted by the AO, with respect to the information in the insight portal with the AO. Considering the same, it is highly strange that the ld.Pr.CIT still goes on holding that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries. 16. Considering the voluminous inquiries conducted by the AO, as noted above by us, the onus was on the ld.Pr.CIT to point out the specific inquiry which the AO had not conducted and which resulted the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
