TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ising the proposed questions of law arising out of the order dated 17th November, 2025 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot (for short 'the Tribunal') in ITA No. 271/RJT/2024 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 3. On perusal of the proposed questions of law, it appears that none of the questions can be said to be a substantial question of law and therefore, the same are not reproduced herein for sake of convenience, as the Revenue has raised as many as sixteen questions arising from the impugned order of the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case are as under: 4.1. For the Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee filed original return of income on 31st July, 2012, declaring total income of Rs. 78,030/-. The case of the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act, the assessee preferred an Appeal before the Tribunal, contending inter-alia that the PCIT could not have exercised the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act, more particularly, when the assessee has disclosed all the material facts before the Assessing Officer for both the companies, i.e. Fist Fin Services Ltd. and Centron Ind, and the Assessing Officer, after considering such explanation and documents placed on record, has rightly not made addition with regard to the LTCG exemption claimed by the assessee in respect of the shares sold of Centron Ind. 4.5. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions made by the assessee as well as the Revenue, allowed the appeal by quashing and setting a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ails of Centron-Ind were also submitted at the time of assessment Proceedings as well. Hence, we find that revision of section 263 of the Act does not give any power whatsoever to the Ld. PCIT to remit the issue back to the file of assessing officer without finding that the order of assessing officer is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue as held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunbeam Auto Limited reported in 332 ITR 167 (Del). When the Assessing Office has specifically mentioned in the order that books of accounts along with purchase/sales, invoices, ledgers, bank accounts were examined, verified and test checked, setting aside by Commissioner, in absence of any finding that Assessing Offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Therefore, assessing officer having examined all the documents and evidences, took the plausible view, and hence, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue." 4.6. The Tribunal thereafter, examined the settled legal position for exercising the jurisdiction by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act and referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of CIT Versus Minalben S. Parikh reported in 215 ITR 81 (Guj.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Versus Gabriel India Ltd. reported in 203 ITR 108 (Bom.) as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT Versus Ganpat Ram Bishnoi reported in 296 ITR 0292....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble Apex Court that power of Commissioner u/s 263 must be exercised on the basis of material that is available to him when he has exercised power. It was further held by Apex Court that PCIT should give the proper reasons. 18. In any event, we note that the Assessing Officer has adopted one of the courses permissible in law and even if it has resulted in loss to the revenue, the said decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, 243 ITR 83(SC). Since the order of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, in the facts ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arket price prevailing in the stock exchange and the amount was received through banking channel. The Tribunal therefore, has come to the conclusion that only because the Assessing Officer has formed an opinion that the transaction is valid transaction, so far as the sale of the shares of Centron Ind is concerned, the PCIT should not have substituted his own opinion on the basis that the assessee has entered into a transaction of the penny stock company and therefore, the Assessment Order is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Maunil Yajnik for the appellants has placed on record the entire paperbook containing the documents which were filed before the Assessing Officer, PCIT and Tribunal, and on ....