PCIT revision under section 263 invalid when disagreeing with AO's legally permissible view on bogus capital gains

ITAT Jaipur allowed the assessee's appeal against PCIT's revision order u/s 263 regarding addition u/s 68 for alleged bogus long-term capital gains through penny stock trading. The tribunal held that both conditions for invoking section 263 - order being erroneous and prejudicial to revenue - must be satisfied. Since AO had adopted a permissible view in law and PCIT merely disagreed without proving the view was totally unsustainable, the revision was invalid. The tribunal concluded it was merely a change of opinion by PCIT, which is not permitted under law, and vacated the section 263 order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in passing an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Whether the PCIT erred in treating the exempt Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as bogus.
3. Whether the PCIT ignored detailed submissions made by the assessee in response to notice u/s 263.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) erred in passing an order u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act.

The assessee filed a return of income on 26.10.2016, declaring total income at Rs. 16,40,790/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 14.04.2017. Based on information from the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai, it was found that the assessee introduced unaccounted funds through bogus LTCG entries by trading in penny stocks of M/s Goenka Business and Finance Limited and Ejecta Marketing Ltd. Consequently, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2021, and the assessee filed a return declaring the same income. The assessment was completed on 23.03.2022, accepting the returned income. The PCIT, upon examining the records, observed that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not properly examine the issue of bogus LTCG and initiated proceedings u/s 263. The PCIT held that the AO failed to make necessary inquiries, making the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The ITAT held that the AO had conducted the required inquiry, and the PCIT merely had a different opinion. The ITAT quashed the order of the PCIT, stating that the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue were not satisfied.

Issue 2: Whether the PCIT erred in treating the exempt Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as bogus.

The PCIT observed that the AO did not examine the issue of bogus LTCG properly and failed to make necessary inquiries, despite detailed information from the Investigation Wing. The AO accepted the assessee's claim without proper verification. The assessee argued that all relevant documents supporting the transactions were submitted and verified by the AO. The ITAT noted that the AO had conducted inquiries and verified the details before accepting the returned income. The ITAT held that the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the AO had taken a possible view based on the inquiries conducted. Therefore, the PCIT's order treating the LTCG as bogus was not justified.

Issue 3: Whether the PCIT ignored detailed submissions made by the assessee in response to notice u/s 263.

The assessee filed detailed submissions in response to the notice u/s 263, providing all relevant documents and evidence supporting the transactions. The PCIT considered the submissions but found them untenable. The ITAT observed that the AO had examined the issue based on the details provided by the assessee and had recorded satisfaction in the assessment order. The ITAT held that the PCIT's order was based on a mere change of opinion and not on any error or prejudice in the AO's order. Therefore, the ITAT quashed the PCIT's order, stating that the detailed submissions made by the assessee were duly considered by the AO, and the assessment was completed after proper verification.

Conclusion:

The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the order of the PCIT passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT held that the assessment order passed by the AO was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, as the AO had conducted necessary inquiries and verified the details before accepting the returned income. The ITAT emphasized that the PCIT's order was based on a mere change of opinion, which is not permissible under the law.

---