Alleged bogus long-term capital gains review rejected; assessment sustained as AO's acceptance of explanations upheld by precedents

Revisionary jurisdiction under challenge concerned alleged bogus long-term capital gains from share sales; ITAT observed that AO had raised specific queries, received detailed replies, and taken a plausible, bona fide view after verification, so the assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial and revisionary action was unsustainable. Reliance on jurisdictional High Court and ITAT precedents supporting genuineness of shares and accepted explanations reinforced that the AO committed no mistake. Matter decided for the taxpayer with revision order set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax validly invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 to set aside the reassessment order passed under section 147 for AY 2014-15 by treating the assessment as "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue".

Analysis: Legal framework: section 263 requires the Commissioner to be satisfied that the order of the Assessing Officer is both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; Explanation 2 identifies circumstances (including orders passed without necessary inquiries) that may render an order erroneous; the power under section 263 cannot be exercised merely because the Commissioner would have preferred further inquiries or holds a different view where the AO has applied his mind and taken a bona fide, possible view. Factual application: during reassessment proceedings the AO issued specific notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2), the assessee submitted detailed contemporaneous documents (contract notes, share transfer forms, demat statements, bank statements, ledger entries and related records) and explanations, and the AO considered and verified these submissions and completed the assessment on returned income. The revisional authority did not identify specific defects in the documents or explain why the AO's enquiries and acceptance of the evidence were inadequate; the PCIT relied on the same investigation information that formed the basis for reopening but did not point to any concrete infirmity in the AO's factual findings or demonstrate that the AO's view was unsustainable in law. The Tribunal relied on established principles (including the requirement of the twin conditions for s.263 and precedents holding that mere absence of detailed reasoning in the assessment order does not, by itself, render the AO's order erroneous) to assess whether the revisional jurisdiction was correctly exercised.

Conclusion: The invocation of section 263 is not sustainable; the revision-order is quashed and the assessment-order is restored. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

---