2021 (12) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l Commissioner of Income-tax - 17, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Pr CIT) erred in framing an order dated 28.01.2021 under section 263 of the Act to set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer - 17(1)(1) Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) by holding that the assessment order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and consequently, directing the Assessing Officer to frame the order of assessment de novo. The appellant contends that the Pr CIT has not appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety; the impugned order under section 263 is bad in law inasmuch as the assessment order of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ply of the assessee, the case of the assessee was reopened on the said ground in view of the provision u/s.263 of the Act. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 5. All these issues are in connection with the reopening of the assessment of the assessee in view of the provision u/s.263 of the Act. The basic contention is that the Assessing Officer added a long term capital gain of Rs. 47,37,582/- on account of sale of penny stock however, the ld. PCIT is of the view that the whole-sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 49,52,450/- should be considered. We observed that while completing the assessment in view of provisions u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer issued a notice stating the rea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in IDS 2016 has only declared long term capital gain on penny stock, whereas, the assessee should have declared gross sale receipt of the shares. The immunity is granted to the assessee to the extent ITA NO. 3001/MUM/2019 (A.Y.2015-16) declaration is made under IDS 2016 and not against the entire transaction. The PCIT invoked revisional jurisdiction to tax the difference between gross sale price of the shares Rs. 34,30,000/- and Long Term Capital Gains declared by the assessee Rs. 32,86,815/-In other words, the PCIT seeks to tax even the purchase cost of the shares i.e. Rs. 1,43,185/- stating it to be a bogus purchase transaction. 5. After examining the documents on record we do not concur with the view of the PCIT. The assessee h....