2024 (9) TMI 1857

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0/2023, CM APPL. 5205/2024 1. The Principal Commissioner impugns the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [Tribunal] dated 04 April 2022 and posits the following questions of law for our consideration: -  "A. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. ITAT is correct in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act by Ld. PCIT was not justified even though the AO passed the assessment order without making necessary inquiries or verification which should have been made? B. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. ITAT is correct in deleting the appeal in favour of the assessee ignoring the provisions ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(2) and 142(1) of the Act was issued by AO along with questionnaire and the assessee was also asked to submit the various details contained therein. The paper book filed by the assessee reveals that in response to the notice issued by AO assessee had made submissions on various dates namely on .2017 (illegible) 5.12.2017, 13.12.2017, 18.12.2017 and on 21.12.2017. On the aforesaid dates, assessee had inter alia filed the computation of capital gains, details from whom the shares were purchased their PAN numbers, copies of purchase bills, copies of bank account evidencing payment to sellers, contract note for sale of shares, PAN number and SEBI registration under of the broker, copy of the DMAT account, copy of notice for listing of shares by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xercised only where no inquiry as required under the law is done. It is not open to enquire in cases of inadequate inquiry. In the present case, as noted above, the AO had raised various queries and the same were also replied by the assessee. In such a situation it cannot be said that there was lack of inquiry from the end of AO. We further find that PCIT at the end of para 8 of the order has also not given any conclusive finding about the shares of K.D. Trendwear Ltd. that it is a penny stock as his observation is "apparently K.D. Trendwear Ltd. is a penny stock" which shows that he is not sure about the shares of K.D. Trendwear Ltd., being a penny stock."  2. However, we find that the Commissioner while passing the order in ....