TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 2019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vided Family. The assessee had filed original return of income on 31.07.2012, declaring total income of Rs. 78,030/- for assessment year (AY) 2014-15. The assessee's case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information that the assessee has made transactions in penny stock of Fist Fin Services Ltd. (scrip code 511369) during the previous year relevant to assessment year (AY) 2014-15 and claimed the LTCG income thereon as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. Accordingly, order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act has been passed on 28.03.2022, determining total income at Rs.10,83,203/-, after making addition of Rs. 10,05,173/-, on account of cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Later on, Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, ( in brief "ld. PCIT") exercised his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961.On perusal of case records for the assessment year under consideration, it was observed by the learned PCIT that during the previous year, the assessee has also made transactions in another penny stock scrip "Centron Ind" and sold 4500 shares at an amount of Rs.10,67,985/- and claimed LTCG of Rs.9,57,333/- (10,67,985 - 1,10,652) claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by treating same as penny stock script. The assessee had submitted all details at the time of re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and assessee had again submitted the same documents before the learned PCIT on dated 29.01.2022, 1102.2022 and 17.03.2022. Therefore, assessing officer having examined all the documents and evidences, took the plausible view, therefore, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. However, Ld. PCIT rejected the contention of the assessee and held that assessment order framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 28.03.2022 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Therefore, Ld. PCIT had set-aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to pass fresh assessment order. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. PCIT, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued on technical issue that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act, to reopen the assessment u/s 147 of the Act, was itself illegal when the order u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, is itself illegal and bad in law then the assessment order is goin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al sale of securities for value of Rs. 20,68,615.29/- stating that assessee had claimed total LTCG of Rs. 19,38,452.29/- during the year under consideration. The assessee also submitted the contract notes for purchase of 3500 shares of First Financials and 4500 shares of Centron Ind. The assessee also submitted the confirmation from the Share Broker VINIT Enterprises that they were holding the shares on behalf of the assessee. The detailed explanation of each and every point was submitted and explained before the assessing officer at the time of re-assessment proceedings with regard to all the share transactions entered into by the assessee during the year under consideration viz. contract notes, confirmation from share brokers, ledger account of share brokers, details of bank account through which such transactions were done, copy of cheque received for LTCG etc., were also submitted vide submission dated 11.02.2022. The de-mat account statement was also submitted before the assessing officer. The assessing officer having examined all the relevant facts and evidences, allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, order passed by the assessing officer, is neither erroneous nor prej....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ron-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 Officer's order is factually incorrect, and not justified. - Vijay Kumr Megotia vs. CIT [2010] 3 ITR (T) 760 (Pat)(Trib.). 13. For the sake of repetition, we find that before, the assessing officer, the assessee submitted relevant documents and evidences, on dated 29.01.2022, explaining the total sale of securities for value of Rs. 20,68,615.29/- stating that assessee was claimed total LTCG of Rs.19,38,452.29/- during the year under consideration. The assessee sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act for making further inquiries." 15. In this regard reliance is also placed upon decision of Hon`ble Rajasthan High Court in case of CIT vs. Ganpat Ram, Bishnoi [296 ITR 0292] wherein it was held that "no presumption can be drawn that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to various aspects of the matter. Once enquiry in fact has been conducted and the Assessing Officer has reached a particular conclusion, though reference to such enquiries has not been made in the order of the assessment, the invocation of jurisdiction by CIT is not sustainable. If a query is raised during the course of scrutiny by the assessing officer, which was answered to the satisfaction of the assessing officer, but neither the query nor the answer was reflected in the assessment order, this would not by itself lead to the conclusion that the order of the assessing officer called for interference and revision". On the similar facts, the reliance is placed on the decision of Hon`ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Vikas Polymers [341 ITR 537] (Delhi HC). The assessing officer has made the proper inquiry which was adequate. If there was any inquiry even inadequate that by itself would....