TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 907
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al to the interest of the revenue is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 2.1 The Id. Pr. CIT has grievously erred in law and or on facts in holding that the order of assessment u/s 147 rws 144B passed on 29.03.2022 by AO accepting the LTCG on sale of shares of Looks Health Services Ltd. (short 'LHSL') Rs. 1,02,18,980/- as genuine and the appellant was entitled to exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 2.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. Pr. CIT ought not to have invoked the powers of revision u/s 263 and thereby holding that LTCG on sale of shares of Looks Health Services Ltd. (short 'LHSL') of Rs. 1,02,18,980/- was not genuine and the appellant was not entitled to exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act so that the AO should have made addition. 3.1 The Id. NFAC has grievously erred in law and or on facts in holding that the provision of Explanation-2 to sec.263 was attracted in the facts of the case. 3.2 That the in the facts and circumstances of the Id. Pr.CIT ought not to have directed AO to pass a fresh order of fresh assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned on the sale of shares of "LHSL" amounting to Rs. 1,02,18,980/-, which as per the information available with the Department, were allegedly penny stock. 7. The case of the ld.Pr.CIT is that there was information available in the insight portal of the Department of the share traded by the assessee, being a bogus penny stock and despite the specific information available with the AO, he did not make complete inquiry vis-à-vis such information, and allowed the assessee's claim of treating such transaction as genuine and as a consequence exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. 8. Now what the ld.Pr.CIT has done in his order under section 263 of the Act is that in para-5, from page no.2 to 7 of his order, he has reproduced the entire contents of the information contained in the inside portal of the department. And it is all scanned version. What transpires from that information or what is gist of the information, is not mentioned in any where in his order. Despite the same, after going through it, what it appears is that, it merely showed that the Department was in possession of information that the assessee had traded in a scrip "LHSL" during the impugned year which de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n accordance with the provisions of the Act. The error in the assessment order has resulted into loss of revenue. The order passed by the Assessing Officer is, thus, erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Therefore, provisions of section 263 of the Act are applicable in this case. There is no other finding recorded in the entire order of the ld.Pr.CIT. 11. From the above, it is not clear as to what the AO has not verified. In the first place, as we have noted above, contents of the insight portal have not been clarified nor the ld.Pr.CIT had made any attempt to briefly summarise the same in his order. On the top of that, without any information about the contents of the insight portal, there is no clarity at as to what information was not verified by the AO. 12. It is clearly evident from the above that entire exercise by the ld.Pr.CIT is in gross misuse of his power under section 263 of the Act. There is no finding as such, pointing out of any error in the order of the AO. We have not been able to gather what particular information available on the insight portal was not inquired into by the AO, nor was the ld.DR able to point out from the order of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also invested in the scrip, * how many transactions were done with the broker in the past All the evidences were filed before us in the paper book from pages 10 to 98. 15. We have gone through the contents of the submissions made by the assessee, and we find that the AO has, during the assessment proceedings raised every possible query on the information available in the insight portal and the assessee did respond to the same. The ld.DR before us was unable to point out, which query remained to be answered by the assessee or which inquiry was not conducted by the AO, with respect to the information in the insight portal with the AO. Considering the same, it is highly strange that the ld.Pr.CIT still goes on holding that the AO had not conducted proper inquiries. 16. Considering the voluminous inquiries conducted by the AO, as noted above by us, the onus was on the ld.Pr.CIT to point out the specific inquiry which the AO had not conducted and which resulted therefor in the assessment order being erroneous, causing prejudice to the Revenue for a valid exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. In the light of the same, we hold that the impugned or....