TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed a condonation application explaining the reasons for delay along with an affidavit. After considering the contents of the condonation petition filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the learned DR, the delay in filing of this appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the learned PCIT u/s 263 setting aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee filed its e-return for the A.Y 2013-14 on 25.05.2018 declaring taxable income of Rs. 43,59,780/-. Since the return was filed beyo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... received and the details of such exemption claimed on the dividend brought on record by the Assessing Officer, he was of the opinion that the taxability of the capital gain that arose remained unverified. He was of the opinion that the order passed by the Assessing Officer has become erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue on account of non-verification of the investment of Rs. 54,30,000/- and taxability on the capital gain. He therefore, issued a show cause notice u/s 263 of the I.T. Act asking the assessee to explain as to why the order passed by the Assessing Officer should not be cancelled. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee, the learned PCIT set aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the I.T. Act. He also relied on the decision of the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd vs. DCIT vide ITA No. 329/Kol/2017 order dated 2.6.2017 for the ay 2012-13 and the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO reported in 70 Taxmann.com 227 (Mum). 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, while supporting the order of the learned PCIT, submitted that when the assessee has declared taxable income of Rs. 43,59,780/- out of which the TDS is Rs. 11,34,670/- and the amount credited in the Bank account towards redemption of Mutual Fund etc. has been utilized for other purposes not being shown as withdrawals for investm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see explained that an amount of Rs. 33,39,898/- is on account of redemption of mutual fund. However, a perusal of the bank statement shows that although the same amounts have been credited in the bank account, however, the assessee has neither shown such investment in the balance sheet under the head "investment", nor has withdrawn the same for investment. However, the assessee has shown only an amount of Rs. 24,92,669/- from the capital account towards drawings which he is trying to explain the source of investment of Rs. 54,30,000/-. The Assessing Officer has completely lost his sight while accepting the explanation given by the assessee towards source of investment which not only made the assessment order erroneous but also is prejudicia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estment in mutual funds remained unexplained and therefore, the decision in the case of Infinity Infotech Park Ltd (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 12. Similarly, in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane vs. ITO (Supra) also the facts are different. In that case the assessment was reopened to assess the income, if any, that has escaped the assessment for the year under consideration on the basis of the incriminating documents found during the course of search in the premises of one M/s. RNS Infrastructure. The Tribunal has given a finding that the assessee was not implicated in the answer given by the VP-Finance and the allegation of the Pr. CIT in that case was that the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment w....