Tribunal overturns order under Income-tax Act, finding original assessment not erroneous

The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the order passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found that the original assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, as the shares were purchased through legitimate banking transactions and detailed replies and evidence were provided to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Principal Commissioner wrongly assumed revisional jurisdiction, leading to the decision to quash the order under section 263.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, justifying the invocation of section 263 of the Act.
2. Whether the entire sale consideration on the sale of penny stock share and the commission amounting to &8377; 20,17,239 were erroneously not taxed by the Assessing Officer.
3. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-19, Mumbai was justified in setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax Officer-18(3) and directing a fresh assessment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-19, Mumbai, dated 24.03.2021, regarding the assessment for the A.Y. 2015-16. The Principal Commissioner observed that the transaction involving the purchase and sale of shares was part of an accommodation entry and held the long term capital gain as unexplained income. The order passed by the Assessing Officer was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, leading to the proposal for passing a fresh order or enhancing the assessment under section 263 of the Act.

2. The Principal Commissioner concluded that the entire sale consideration on the penny stock share and the commission of &8377; 20,17,239 should have been taxed by the Assessing Officer. The failure to do so, along with the lack of necessary enquiries and application of correct provisions of the Act, rendered the assessment erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The order under section 263 directed the Assessing Officer to reassess the case after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and present any evidence.

3. The assessee contended that the order under section 263 was unwarranted as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue. During the hearing, the assessee argued that the conditions for invoking section 263 were not met, citing a similar case where the Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Principal Commissioner under section 263. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had issued a questionnaire, and the assessee had provided detailed replies and evidence, demonstrating that the shares were purchased through legitimate banking transactions. The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner wrongly assumed revisional jurisdiction, as the twin conditions for invoking section 263 were not satisfied.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the order passed under section 263 of the Act, based on the lack of error in the original assessment order and the absence of prejudice to the revenue.

---