TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 858
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2015-16. 02. Though the appeals relate to different assessee, as the facts, issues and circumstances in all these appeals are similar, hence, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we will take ITA no. 18/KOL/2021 as our lead case and facts, issues are discussed in the following paragraphs. ITA No. 18/KOL/2021 03. The only issue raised is against the invalid exercise of revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by ld. PCIT, thereby wrongly revising the assessment framed by the ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), dated 08-9-2017. 04. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 27.09.2015, declaring total income at Rs.4,31,550/-.The case of the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in the matter. Accordingly, the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 08-09-2017 was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Show cause notice was issued under section 263 of the Act, on 14.01.2021, which was replied by the assessee submitting that all the documents comprising audited balance sheet, profit and loss account, copy of purchase account, copy of sale account, indirect expenses, indirect income, bank statements were filed before the learned AO along with evidences of purchase and sale of shares and the AO, only after taking into account all these evidences and after due examination thereof, framed the assessment. Rejecting the submissions and contentions of the ld AR, the learned PCIT final....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. The learned AR submitted that this is not a case of no inquiry by the learned AO as the learned AO has called for the details/ information specifically on the issue as is evident from the notice issued under Section 142(1) along with questionnaire and the reply furnished by the assessee and records available in the assessment folder. The learned AR therefore submitted that it is not a case of no inquiry but if at all it may be a case of inadequate inquiry. The learned AR submitted that in case of no inquiry, the PCIT has jurisdiction to invoke the revisionary provisions under the Act as contained under Section 263 of the Act but in case of inadequate inquiry by the learned AO, the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act is not availab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ossible and plausible view after examination of the evidences with which the learned PCIT does not agree, even in that scenario the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is not available to the learned PCIT to revise the assessment in order to substitute his view in place of AO's view for the reason that he does not agree with the view taken by the Learned AO. In defense of his argument, the Learned AR relied on the decisions of J. L. Morison (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No. 786/Kol/2010), PCIT Vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. 146 taxmann.com 246, CIT Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. [2021] 332 ITR 1067 (Del.). The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act may kindly be quashed. 08. The ld. DR on the other hand strongly rebutted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessment proceedings. In our opinion the conclusion of the ld. PCIT appears to be not correct and is in fact contrary to the facts available in assessment records. We have been examined the documents furnished before us by the assessee and find that certified copies were obtained from the learned AO which comprised of the evidences qua the sale and purchase of shares and ledger copies of purchase and sale of equity shares. In other words, these evidences were part of the assessment folder. Thereafter, the conclusion drawn by the learned PCIT that the issue is not examined at all by the Learned AO is contrary to the facts available on record. We note that the Learned AO has examined this issue after calling for the information/details/evi....