TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 832
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to set aside the order of the Income Tax Off icer -21[1][2], Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer] by holding that the assessment order dated 14/12/2017 passed by the Assessing Off icer under section 143[3] r.w.s.147 of Income Tax Act, 1961 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and consequently, directing the Assessing Officer to frame the order of assessment de novo. 2. 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 Assessing Off icer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. 3. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... reason to believe that income has escaped the Assesseement and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee has filed a letter dated 08.08.2017 to treat the return of income filed on 31.08.2013 as due compliance. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued. Whereas the A.O. has dealt on the facts, trading in shares, reports of the investigation wing and the submissions of the assessee in response to show cause notice and determined the total income with the denial of exemption of Long Term Capital gains u/sec10(38) of the act and made addition of sale proceeds u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 77,02,597/- and disallowance of commission expenses u/s 69 of the Act of Rs. 2,31,078/- and assessed the to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spute has denied the exemption 10(38) of the Act and treated the proceeds from share transactions u/sec68 of the Act. The Ld. AR emphasized that the disputed issue was considered by the A.O and after verifying the facts has passed the assesseement order and further the assessee has filed the appeal with the CIT(A) and the same is pending. The Ld. AR supported the submissions with the decision of the Honble Tribunal on similar and identical issue and prayed for allowing the assessee appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the PCIT. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Prima-facie, the sole crux of the disputed issue is with respect to directions of the PCIT to consider the purchases pric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ITA No.3001/Mum/2019 dated 14/10/2020. The copy of this order is placed in the file and relevant finding is hereby reproduced 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 Off icer 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 ITA NO. 3001....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any one of these two conditions is absent, the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot take recourse to section 263 of the Act. 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 n....