TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 686
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g income from house property, income from business and profession, income from capital gains and income from other sources. Assessee had filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 20.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 45,60,850/-. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] was completed on 18.12.2017 determining total income at Rs. 7,13,47,400/-. Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the appeal is pending before the Ld.CIT(A). On perusal of assessment records Ld. Pr.CIT observed that in the assessment made, it is noticed that assessee claimed to have purchased shares of the scrip "Aplaya Creation Ltd. (Earlier known as M/s EINS EDUTECH Ltd.)" for Rs. 24,00,000/- and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh or enhancing the assessment is proposed under the provisions of section 263 of the Act for the A.Y.2015-16. A notice u/s. 263(1) of the Act dated 18.03.2021 was issued to the assessee to provide it an opportunity to be heard. In response to the notice issued u/s. 263(1) of the Act, no reply was furnished by the assessee. 3. After careful examination of the assessment records, Ld. Pr.CIT have come to the conclusion, that the Assessing Officer failed to consider that the entire sale consideration on sale of penny stock share was of the nature of accommodation entries and hence entire amount of Rs. 6,72,41,315/- ought to have been taxed and also the commission @3% amounting to Rs. 20,17,239/- which is an unexplained expenditure u/s.69C ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder under section 263 is bad in law inasmuch as the assessment order of the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The appellant further, contends that the Pr CIT ought not to have reached the aforesaid conclusion inasmuch as his conclusion is based on the same material which has been considered by the Assessing Officer to make the addition in his assessment order, and thus, the impugned order passed by the Pr CIT under section 263 is bad in law. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Pr.CIT lacks jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in as much as the material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer has mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing as under: "4. We have heard the submissions made by Ld. Departmental Representative and have examined the material available on record. The PCIT has invoked revisional jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has failed to examine the transaction of purchase and sale of shares. Another reason for invoking revisional jurisdiction by the PCIT is, that the assessee 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 declaration is made under IDS 2016 and not against the entire transaction. The PCIT invoked revisional jurisdiction to tax the dif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. In the present case, we find that the Assessing Officer has issued a questionnaire wherein specific information was sought on transaction of equity shares and working of short term capital gain/long term capital gain. The assessee furnished a detailed reply to the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act, wherein the assessee while replying to the query on transaction of shares, informed that a declaration under IDS 2016 has been made in respect of long term capital gain arising on sale of shares to GCM Securities Ltd. Ostensibly, the Assessing Officer after examining the documents accepted the same and made no addition. Merely for the reason that the Assessing Officer has taken a plausible view after examining the records th....