TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 1191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er passed U/s 153(A) r.w.s. 143(3), open certain issues which is bad in law and bad on facts. The order made U/s 153(A) r.w.s. 143(3) cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to interest of revenue. 2. (a) The order passed U/s 153(A) r.w.s. 143(3) was made after duly examining the issue relating to capital gains and the income offered in the return and such order cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. (b) The ld. PCIT has erred in observing that the income on account of capital gains which was claimed to be exempt u/s 10(38) amounting to Rs. 66,205/- was liable to be taxed as income. (c) Long Term capital gain on transfer of share of ACI Infcom, which is still traded on the stock exchange can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o suggest that the long term capital gain was not genuine. 5. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has submitted that in the computation of total income submitted with return complete details of long term capital gains arising on sale of shares of ACI Infocom Ltd. was submitted which is also placed at paper book page 7-9. During the course of assessment proceedings, the complete details of such long term capital gain was asked for and submitted vide letter dated 10.11.2017 which is placed at paper book page No.4. Along with said letter details of long term capital gain, ledger extracts of investments, copy of broker note for purchase as well as for sale of shares, bank statement indicating payment for investment in shares and rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this regard. 8. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has vehemently supported the order of the ld. Pr.CIT. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. From perusal of the record, we notice that the sole issue that arises for our adjudication in facts of instant case is as to whether the ld. Principal CIT has rightly exercised his revision jurisdiction vested under s. 263 or not. There is no dispute that the AO accepted the assessee's LTCG and details were submitted during the assessment proceedings. Suffice to say, the same fact very much emerges not only from assessee's paper book. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd reported in 243 ITR 83 (SC), the Supreme Court held that a bare readin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the ITO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, unless the view taken by the ITO is unsustainable in law. In the present case, it cannot be said due enquiry was not made. After making enquiry the decision has been taken, which also cannot be said to be erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Further even in the order of 263, nothing material has been indicated to show that the order was erroneous. The assessment order is not required to give a detailed reason in respect of each and every item of exemption or deduction, et....