ITAT upholds assessee's LTCG exemption u/s 10(38) on penny stocks, quashes PCIT's revision u/s 263

ITAT Kolkata ruled in favor of the assessee regarding revision u/s 263 for bogus LTCG on penny stock sales. The AO had conducted proper enquiries, examined purchase bills, bank statements, contract notes, and obtained broker replies u/s 133(6) before accepting the assessee's claim u/s 10(38). PCIT's revisionary jurisdiction was held unsustainable as the AO took a plausible view after adequate examination. The tribunal cited HC precedents and noted PCIT exercised jurisdiction based on AO's proposal, which violated established legal principles. PCIT failed to establish how the assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interest.

---

---

Issues:
- Validity of exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Kolkata.
- Assessment of long term capital gain on sale of shares and the subsequent revisionary order u/s 263 of the Act.
- Whether the AO conducted sufficient enquiries and took a plausible view before the revisionary order was passed.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of exercise of jurisdiction u/s 263
The Appellate Tribunal considered the appeals against the orders of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Kolkata under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The only issue raised by the assessee was regarding the jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT in passing the revisionary order. The PCIT set aside the assessment framed by the AO and directed reassessment based on the claim of long term capital gain on the sale of shares. The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot exercise revisionary jurisdiction if the AO has conducted enquiries and taken a plausible view. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws, including decisions of the Calcutta High Court and Delhi High Court, to support its conclusion. It was observed that the PCIT did not conduct any independent investigation and merely relied on a circular, which was deemed insufficient. Therefore, the Tribunal quashed the revisionary order as the jurisdiction was invalidly exercised.

Issue 2: Assessment of long term capital gain on sale of shares
The facts revealed that the assessee had purchased and sold equity shares considered as penny stocks. The AO had conducted necessary enquiries, verified documents, and accepted the genuineness of the transactions after receiving confirmation from stock brokers. The PCIT initiated revisionary proceedings based on the proposal from the AO, which was found to be against the established legal principles. The Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT should have conducted an independent enquiry if he believed the AO's assessment was inadequate. The Tribunal held that the AO had appropriately examined the issue, and the PCIT's intervention was unwarranted. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, as claimed by the PCIT.

Issue 3: AO's enquiry and plausible view
The Tribunal highlighted that the AO had diligently examined the documents and evidences provided by the assessee, including purchase bills, bank statements, and contract notes. The AO also sought confirmation from stock brokers, which further validated the transactions. The Tribunal reiterated that the PCIT's reliance on a circular without conducting an independent enquiry was insufficient to justify revisionary powers. The Tribunal emphasized that the PCIT should have undertaken a thorough investigation before setting aside the assessment order. The Tribunal cited relevant case laws to support its conclusion that the PCIT's jurisdiction was invalidly exercised due to the lack of independent enquiry and reliance on inadequate grounds.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals of the different assessees, quashing the revisionary order passed by the PCIT and emphasizing the importance of conducting thorough enquiries before exercising revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.

---