TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are as follows. The assessee had filed return of income, declaring total income of Rs. 33,48,920/-, on 31/03/2014 for the assessment year (AY) 2013-14. Therefore, the assessee`s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act ('the Act' for short) on the basis of information that the assessee has made transactions in penny stock of Aricent Infra Ltd (Scrip Code 530967, known as Kyar Landscape Ltd) of Rs. 81,75,900/-, during the previous year relevant to assessment year (AY) 2013-14 and claimed exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act to the tune of Rs. 75,85,100/- from the sale of shares of Aricent Infra Ltd. Accordingly, order u/s 147 rws 144B of the Act was passed on 31/03/2022, making an addition of Rs. 81,75,900/-, u/s. 68 of the Act to the total income of the assessee. 3. Later on, the Ld. PCIT exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961.On perusal of assessment records for assessment year (AY) 2013-14, it was observed by Ld. PCIT that the order passed by the assessing officer prima facie erroneous, and not as per the provision of the Income-tax Act and prejudicial t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and credited to his demat account with Care Growth Broking Pvt. Ltd. Thus, acquisition and holding of shares by the assessee is beyond any doubt. 5. However, Ld. PCIT rejected the above contention of the assessee and held that the assessee has not been able to explain the reason for making investment in the shares of penny stock companies and the reason for abnormal rise in the sale price within a short span of time. Therefore, order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 rws 144B of the Act dated 31/03/2022, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Act to that extent and therefore, Ld. PCIT directed the assessing officer to pass the assessment order afresh in respect of the above issue after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. At the outset, on merit, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee purchased the scrip of Aricent Infra Ltd and the financial position of the said company is very good, the company has turnover in crores and such turnover has been increasing since the company had st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld PCIT and other materials brought on record. We note that in relation to observation of Ld. PCIT to the effect that shares purchased at a nominal price, have been sold at a very high price, however, we note that it is a matter of record that shares have been sold at the rates, which were prevailing on the stock exchange at the time of sale; and secondly price of shares in the share market are sentiment driven; and thirdly share prices of all the scripts are closely monitored by the Stock Exchange and SEBI; and lastly even if prices have gone up artificially (as alleged by ld PCIT), there is no material to hold that assessee was involved therein bogus transactions. We note that the onus which lay upon the assessee under section 68 of the Act to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the source of the sums received and identity of the person from whom such sums were received stood duly discharged by the assessee. Moreover, all details of Sree Leather Ltd were also submitted at the time of assessment proceedings, as well. Moreover, r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to his demat account with Care Growth Broking Pvt. Ltd. Thus, acquisition and holding of shares by the assessee is beyond any doubt. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer examined these evidences and facts of the assessee and took plausible view, therefore order passed by the assessing officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 14. Since in the present case, ld. PCIT has exercised jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessing officer while completing the assessment proceeding did not make enquiries which he ought to have made, therefore, it is necessary to look into what enquiries the assessing officer made on the issues raised in the order u/s. 263 of the Act. It is clear from the submissions and material available on record with regard to the shares, that assessee submitted debit note, bank statement to prove the transaction that purchase and sale were conducted through bank, invoices, evidence regarding payment of STT, confirmation from the respective party and other details and documents were also submitted by the assessee before the assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, we n....