TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1910
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aged in the business of making investments, trading in shares and fabric and also doing financing activities. In the course of its regular investment activities, the assessee had purchased 75,000 shares of M/s. Sulabh Engineering Services Ltd. in the month of January, 2014 from Bombay Stock Exchange. Those shares were sold on 18-12-2014 through Bombay Stock Exchange, which resulted in short term capital loss of Rs. 31,46,502/-. The assessee carried forward the said loss to next year, since it could not set off the same with any other income. It so happened that the M/s Sulabh Engineering Services Ltd. was identified as one of the penny stock companies, wherein prices have been manipulated. Hence, the return of income filed by the assessee w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act and the said revision order is being challenged in this appeal. 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO had accepted the transactions of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Sulabh Engineering Services Ltd as genuine not only in the original assessment proceedings, but also in the re-assessment proceedings. The Ld.AR submitted that the AO has carried out necessary enquiries to ascertain the genuineness of purchase and sale of shares of the above said company during the course of re-assessment proceedings also. After satisfying himself with regard to the above said transactions only, the AO has accepted the claim of short term capital loss. In this regard, the Ld A.R invited our attention to the notice dated 09-12-2021 issued by the AO u/s ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e used by section 263 are that the order must be considered by the Commissioner to be "erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue". This provision has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in several judgments to which it is now necessary to turn. In Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 83, the Supreme Court held that the provision "cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer" and "it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted". The Supreme Court held that an incorrect assumption of fact or an incorrect application of law, will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous. An order passed in violation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e view of the matter. In such cases, merely because the Ld.PCIT has got a different opinion of the matter, the same will not entitle him to revise the order passed by the AO. 9. We shall now examine the facts prevailing in this case by applying above said legal principles. In the instant case, we noticed that the assessing officer has examined the issue relating to claim of short term capital loss more than one time, i.e., during original assessment proceeding and also during reassessment proceeding. We also noticed that the AO had issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act during the course of reassessment proceedings calling for details relating to short term capital loss, referred above and the assessee has also furnished detailed reply. Aft....