TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and he, therefore, issued a notice under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') to the assessee. This notice reads as follows :- "Return of income for assessment year 2001-02 was filed on 31-10-2001 declaring an income of Rs. 5,69,210. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) on the income of Rs. 6,37,110. Scrutiny of records revealed that the company is an investment company trading in shares. The shares are the stock of the company and hence cost index cannot be applied. On examination of assessment records by the undersigned it is found that the assessee has sold 45,000 shares of BT Tech Net Ltd. for an amount of Rs. 49,22,912 against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u are hereby allowed an opportunity of being heard so that you can submit evidence in support of your claims made in the return of income. You may send your written submissions and attend personally or/and through authorized representative in my office on the above address on 27-12-2004 at 11.00 A.M." 4. On considering the reply given by the assessee, the CIT passed an order on 22-3-2005 setting aside the assessment order and directing the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment. 5. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, which came to be disposed of by the order under challenge. 6. Three issues have arisen in this appeal. 7. The first relates to the sale of shares held by the assessee in a company ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stment. 11. The second issue pertains to the sale of units of Prudential ICICI Technology Fund. 12. As mentioned in the notice issued by the CIT under section 263 of the Act, the units, according to him, were purchased on 3-3-2001 for Rs. 10 per unit and was sold on 22-3-2001 at Rs. 3.52 per unit. According to the CIT, this loss was manipulated, inter alia, because the data in the accounts statement may differ from investor to investor and that the loss has been booked in the month of March, 2001 apparently with an intent to avoid payment of taxes on capital gains earned earlier in November, 2000. 13. The Tribunal has noted that there is a factual error committed by the CIT inasmuch as the units were purchased by the assessee on 3-3-2000....