TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2030
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstances of the case as well as law on the mater, the learned PCIT has erred in ordering revisional proceedings in the case of assessee. 2 253 Prayer The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any or all the grounds of appeal during appeal proceedings. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed her return of income (ROI) for the AY 2013-14 on 25.03.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 9,71,420/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 10.11.2014. The assessee had shown long-term capital gains on sale of shares of Gemstone Investment Ltd. Subsequently, information was received from DDIT(Inv.) Unit-5(2), Mumbai that the share of Gemstone Investment Ltd. (Gemstone INV-Scrip code-531137) was a penny stock and assessee was a beneficiary from trading of the above shares. The entire transaction was treated as "accommodation entry". On the basis of above information, case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority. In response to the said notice, assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 10,29,740/-. The reassessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....20,00,000/- to the assessee when the marriage was solemnized on 14.02.20213. The assessee also received gifts from other persons including relatives and friends. Their names, relation, PAN, address and amounts of gift were given to AO. Thus, the assessee had submitted all details called for by the AO including capital account, balance sheet, bank statement, etc., where the impugned gifts and cash deposits are reflected. Therefore, the order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The assessee therefore requested to drop the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. The assessee relied on the following decisions (i) Krishnamurthy (V.G) vs. CIT (1985) 152 ITR 683 (Karn), (ii) Jagit Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1997) 60 295 (Del), (iii) Venkatakrishna Rice Co. vs. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 12 (Mad.), (iv) Bismillah Trading Co. vs. Intelligence Office (2001) 248 ITR 292 (Ker.), (v) CIT vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. (2011) 202 Taxmann 130 (Mag),(vi) CIT vs. Vikas Polymers (2010) 194 Taxman 57 (Del), (vii) CIT vs. International Travel House Ltd. (2010) 194 Taxman 324 (Del), (viii) CIT vs. Anil Kumar Sharma (2010) 194 taxman 504 and (ix) CIT vs. Sun Beam Auto Ld. (2009) 31 DTR 1 (Del). ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccommodation entries in trading of scrip of Gemstone Investment Ltd., a penny scrip, to the tune of Rs. 4,89,000/-. The assessee had objected the issuance of notice u/s 148 which was disposed of by AO vide order dated 26.03.2022 which is at page 81 of the paper book. The assessee had filed reply to the notice issued u/s 142(1) wherein various details were called for by the AO. The balance sheet and the capital account of the assessee for the year ended 31.03.2013 is at page 119 of the paper book. The bank statement of assessee is at pages 124 and 125 of the paper book. It could be seen from the capital account that assessee had received gift of Rs. 20,00,000/- from Sitaram Mundra HUF and had also received gifts from others on her weeding of Rs. 24,60,250/-. The Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that marriage expenses of Rs. 21,75,537/- has also been entered in the said capital account. The cash deposits of Rs. 17,05,000/- are reflected in the said bank statement. After considering the reply and the details submitted by assessee, AO has passed the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs. 4,89,000/- on account of investment in the share of M/s Gemstone Investment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r re-opening to the assessee, which was objected to by the assessee. The objection was disposed of by AO. Thereafter, assessee had given reply on the issue of reopening as well as on further queries raised by the AO. After considering the reply of the assessee, the AO passed order u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act by making addition of Rs. 4,89,000/- towards investment in share of Gemstone Investment Ltd. He has not made any addition regarding gifts and cash deposits though assessee had furnished the details in this regard. Thus, it can be said that the AO has examined the issue and taken a considered view on the subject issue. However, the Ld.PCIT has invoked jurisdiction u/s 263 by issuing notice u/s 263 of the Act and passed an order directing the AO to pass fresh assessment order after giving opportunities of being heard to assessee. 5.2 Let us now discuss the scope and ambit of Section 263 of the Act. A bare reading of the section reveals that the Ld.PCIT can call for and examine the record of any proceedings under the Act and if he considers that any order passed by the AO is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may after giving opportun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re he accepted same. The grievance of the Ld.PCIT is that the AO should have made further inquiry in respect of gifts and cash deposit rather than accepting the assessee's explanation. Therefore, it could not be said that it was the case of "lack of inquiry". There is a distinction between "lack of inquiry" and "inadequate inquiry". If there was any inquiry, even inadequate, that could not, by itself, give occasion to the Ld.PCIT to pass order u/s 263 of the Act merely because he has different opinion in the matter. It is only in cases of lack of inquiry that such a course of action could be opened. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has duly examined the facts and formed an opinion that no addition is necessary in view of the reply of the assessee on the subject-issue. Therefore, the decision of Ld.PCIT that the order passed by AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue is not correct. Reliance for this view is based on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Sunbean Auto Ltd. [20110] 189 Taxman 436 (Del). 5.5 The order of Ld. PCIT is not sustainable from another angle. The Ld.AR has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 263 on 22.03.2024. Hence, it was clearly barred by limitation. 5.6. The ITAT Mumbai in case of Indian Education Society vs. CIT (2024) 168 taxmann.com 525 (Mumbai -Tribunal) has taken a similar view and held that where Commissioner passed revision order against reassessment order in case of the assessee-trust on ground that AO had not verified accumulation and application for the year under consideration for purpose of object of the trust for which amount was set apart, however, issue dealt in revision proceedings was unrelated in character from issue of corpus donation received by the assessee which was dealt in reassessment proceedings, revision order passed by the Commissioner was to be quashed. For ready reference, the relevant fact of the order is reproduced below: "7. We have heard both parties and perused the material on record. We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the judicial precedents relied upon. The issue dealt with by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment proceeding and order passed u/s147 and the one dealt in revisionary proceeding u/s 263 and the order passed thereof by Ld.CIT(E) are altogether unrelated and different in their char....