2013 (10) TMI 227

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the order passed under Section 263 by the Commissioner, which is highly cryptic and self contradictory. In fact, it supports the case of the respondent that power under Section 263 could not have been invoked. 3. The respondent-assessee had filed return for assessment year 2006- 07 declaring income of Rs.2,14,62,660/- on 23rd October, 2006. The said income was derived from investments in mutual funds, shares in the shape of dividend, capital gains, etc. The assessment order records that during the course of hearing, the respondent had produced books of account, which were checked. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.27,110/- under Section 14A of the Act by making disallowance of expenditure. No other addition was made. 4.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atter of record that there is a lack of enquiry/investigation on the part of Assessing Officer. To that extent it can certainly be held that the order of the AO is both erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Therefore, the provision of section 263 of the Act is invoked and the order of the Assessing Officer is set aside to be redone afresh. The assessee shall be given reasonable opportunities of being heard." (emphasis supplied) 6. On looking at the assessment order, one does get an impression that the respondent had no other business and had declared a huge amount of Rs.2,16,40,214/- as income from short-term capital gains. This factum has not been adverted or stated in the findings recorded by the Commissio....