TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1150
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on perusal of the assessment record came to the conclusion that the assessment so framed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act dated 18.12.2017 was erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue for the reason that the AO has failed to examine the identity, creditworthiness of the parties and genuineness of the transactions relating to share premium amounting to Rs. 86,70,000/- and accordingly issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act dated 23.10.2019 calling upon the assessee to show cause as to why the assessment framed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act should not be cancelled and revised. The said notice was not replied by the assessee. Thereafter the PCIT again issued show cause notice dated 5.12.2019 which remained uncomplied with. Again the PCIT issued notice dated 16.12.2019 which was replied by the assessee by filing written submissions submitting therein that the assessment of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act specifically in order to examine the amount of the transaction of Rs. 86,70,000/- which was stated to be accommodation entry and assessee was stated to be beneficiary of the same which according to the AO ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... examination of all the details filed by the assessee, the assessment was framed accepting the submissions/arguments of the assessee on the transactions of Rs. 86,70,000/- . The ld. A.R also submitted that the assessee has not raised any share capital/share premium as observed by the PCIT. The ld AR referred to the reply given by the assessee in response to show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act that no such share capital/share premium was ever raised by the assessee from FY 2009-10 to 2019-20 which was also extracted by the ld PCIT on page 3 of the revisionary order passed by him. The Ld. Counsel argued that the ld. PCIT in stead of examining the issue himself has mainly harped on the report of DDIT(Inv), Unit-3(3), Kolkata that too without understanding the facts correctly. The ld counsel submitted that the ld. PCIT assumed the jurisdiction upon wrong appreciation of facts whereas the AO has correctly appreciated the facts and made no addition by taking a possible view in the matter. The ld counsel argued that ld. PCIT can not exercise the jurisdiction u/s 263 on the Act mere because he does not agree to the view taken by the assessee. The Ld. A.R. submitted that ,on the bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment order cannot be considered as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue merely on the ground that there is no discussion on these point in the assessment orders by relying on the decision of CIT vs. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108(Bom). The Ld. Counsel also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers reported 341 ITR 537(Bom) wherein it has been held that there is a distinction between lack of enquiry and inadequate enquiry and it is only a case of lack of enquiry, the ld PCIT can exercise his revisionary powers under the Act The Ld. A.R. has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of DG Housing Projects Ltd. 343 ITR 329(Del) reiterating his arguments that the jurisdiction by PCIT could only be exercised in case lack of enquiry or no enquiry and not in case of inadequate enquiry. The ld. AR therefore prayed that the revisionary proceedings as well as the consequent order may kindly be quashed. 5. The ld. D.R. on the other hand heavily defended the order passed by the PCIT by submitting that no prejudice is going to be caused to the assessee by assumption of revisionary jurisdiction by PCI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the assessee but in fact there was sale of shares to M/s SS Securities for a consideration of Rs. 86,70,000/-. We note that reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act is only done in order to examine the transaction of Rs. 86,70,000/- when the AO received information from DDIT(Inv), Unit-3(3), Kolkata to the effect that that assessee is beneficiary accommodation entry from M/s SS Securities during FY 2009-10 . We note that the AO has issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 29.06.2017 calling upon the assessee to furnish various details inter alia details in respect of sale of stocks etc. and the assessee duly furnished all the details inter alia computation of income , audited accounts, details of investments and copies of relevant sales bills of investment to M/s SS Securities aggregating to Rs. 86,70,000/- and bank statement evidencing the amount received. In our view, the ld. PCIT has not appreciated the facts correctly and has resorted to exercise of revisionary jurisdiction merely on the basis of DDIT(Inv) report on the incorrect assumption of facts on record. In our considered view, since the AO has examined the issue raised by the PCIT in the revisionary order during ass....