TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 83
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Ld. Principal Commissioner has erred in invoking jurisdiction u/s 263 without showing how the alleged lack of inquiry by AO has rendered the order prejudicial to revenue. 2. The Ld. Principal Commissioner has erred in directing AO to disallow the capital loss & make the addition u/s 69A as the final decision with regard to the same is to be done by Ld. AO while passing the order based on inquiry made by him while implementing the order passed Ld. PCIT. 3. The Ld. Principal Commissioner has erred in directing the invocation of 69A as the assessee is not found to be owner of money & source of the same has remained unexplained. 4. The Ld. PCIT out to have been appreciated t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inst capital gain of Rs. 18,77,191/-. On perusal of the assessment records, PCIT observed that the Assessing Officer failed to analyze the documents to verify the genuineness of the transaction. The Assessing Officer completely failed to take into cognizance the fact of the assessee was involved in trading in penny / bogus stocks as per the information basis which case was reopened for scrutiny. Accordingly, the PCIT after taking the submissions of the assessee on record set-aside the assessment order as being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue with the following observations: "13. In view of the detailed discussions above and the legal position laid down by various Courts, it is sufficient to draw a conclusion that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the assessee drew our attention to the Pages 136 - 137 of the 263 notice, wherein the PCIT initiated 263 proceedings on the ground that the assessee has claimed the bogus Long Term Capital Loss (LTCL) of Rs. 3,75,14,478/- and set off this LTCL against Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 18,77,191/- from the sale of shares of Saya. However, the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to return of income filed by the assessee and submitted that during the impugned year under consideration, the assessee had only earned Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) of Rs. 18,582/- on sale of shares of stock called Anaar industries on which due taxes have been paid by the assessee @ 15%. Further, so far as set off of Long Term Capital Loss fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect presumption of facts, is liable to be setaside. 6. The third contention of the Counsel for the assessee was that during the impugned year under consideration, the PCIT erred in stating that the Assessing Officer failed to carry out the necessary verification during the course of 147 proceedings. The Counsel for the assessee invited our attention to notices dated 30.03.2021, 27.07.2021 & 11.02.2022 and response filed by assessee thereto, in which the assessee has given a specific explanation vide reply dated 22.03.2022 wherein the assessee filed details regarding LTCL on sale of shares of ECL and it had been further submitted that this LTCL had neither been adjusted by the assessee against any other head of income nor was such LTCL car....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al of the copy of return of income submitted before us by the assessee during the impugned year under consideration it is observed that the assessee has not set off these LTCL amounting to Rs. 3.75 crores against LTCG of Rs. 18.77 lakhs from sale of shares of Saya all alleged by PCIT. However, on going through the records of the case, there are certain noteworthy aspects which have come before us and require necessary consideration. On perusal of the return of income, we observe that the assessee has declared STCG amounting to Rs. 18,852/-. On being questioned, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that such STCG have been made on the sale of shares of Anaar Industries. Further, the Counsel for the assessee also submitted / admitted that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for substantial sums of money had not been reflected by the assessee in it's return of income. There seems to have no justifiable reason as to why the assessee had not declared details regarding profit / loss on sale of shares of Saya and ECL respectively in the returns of income filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment year under consideration before us. From the facts placed on record it is not coming out clearly whether the assessee had effectively set off the Long Term Capital Losses on sale of shares of ECL against Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares of Saya and therefore, did not declare the details of sale of shares of these two alleged penny stocks in it's return of income. Therefore, on perusal of the case records, ....