TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 493
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") under section 143(3) of the Act, relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. PCIT-1 Ahmedabad has erred both on fact and law in not properly considering the submission made before him and further erred in assuming the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the IT Act, 1961 despite the fact that the assessing officer has conducted detailed inquiry before passing the assessment order. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground either before orin the course of hearing of the appeal. 2.1 On 30 January 2024 the assessee filed following additional grounds of appeal: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent proceedings and after considering the detailed reply filed by the appellant before him and, therefore, the CIT has no jurisdiction to invoke the revisionary powers u/s. 263 of the Act. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned PCIT has erred in not appreciating the facts that the AO after examining the details, has adopted a possible opinion on the point raised in the show cause notice issued by him and, therefore, the CIT lacks jurisdiction to invoke s. 263 of the Act." Facts of the Case: 3 The assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 declaring total income at Rs. 8,18,770/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny through CASS with one of the reasons being "Suspicious sale tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ual buyers, as evident from the fact that no real purchasers came to light after issuance of summons u/s 131 of the Act when investigations were carried out. (iv) Trading in scrip "Suchak Trading Ltd." was suspended by the BSE due to abnormal behaviour of share trading. 3.3 Ld. PCIT also noted that the AO failed to make necessary enquiries to ascertain the actual strength of the company, investment profile of the assessee. He further noted that the assessee entered into transaction of only scrip (Suchak Trading Ltd) and the examination and inquiry of five entities, who purchased the shares sold by assessee, were left open without appropriate conclusion. 3.4 The PCIT also concluded that the order passed by the AO was finalised....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chak Trading Ltd. and related LTCG. He also argued that the AO has conducted the inquiry relating the genuineness of the LTCG and hence Ld. PCIT has no jurisdiction. 6. During the course of hearing the Counsel for the assessee also took us through the submission made before the PCIT in response to notice u/s 263 of the Act. In the said submission the assessee has presumed that the AO must have taken possible steps to enquire in the matter. He also argued that the Ld. PCIT has not initiated this review on his own and therefore he was not right in assuming the jurisdiction. Ld. DR, in reply, explained that the review proposal sent by AO to PCIT is part of their internal procedure and Ld. PCIT has carried independent inquiry of the subject ....