Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA
आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the Revision order passed by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-8 u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2011-12 in Revision No.PCIT, Chennai-8/Revision- 263/100000193552/2021 dated 23.03.2021. The assessment was
I.T.A. No.233/Chny/2021 2 framed by the ITO, Non-Corporate Ward 6(4), Chennai u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated 14.05.2018.
At the outset, it is noticed that the appeal is barred by limitation by 34 days. The order of PCIT dated 23.03.2021 was received by assessee on 23.03.2021 as per Form 36 but appeal was filed only on 25.06.2021. The ld. AR for the assessee stated that the delay was due to Covid-19 pandemic. We noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 vide order dated 23.03.2020 has given directions that the delay are to be condoned during this period 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 and they have condoned the delay up to 28.02.2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 vide order dated 10.01.2022. In term of the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, we condone the delay in filing of this appeal by assessee and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of PCIT revising the assessment and for this, assessee has raised the following three grounds:- 2. For that the order of Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 is bad in law as well as under the facts and circumstances of the case.
I.T.A. No.233/Chny/2021 3 3. For that the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer for inadequate inquiry under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. For that the Learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in not considering the written submissions in its entirety under the facts and circumstances of the case.
We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts of the case. The original assessment was completed by the AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, for the assessment year 2011-12 after reopening the assessment. The reopening was done on the basis of information received from the investigation wing of the Income Tax Department, Kolkata that the various beneficiaries who have taken accommodation entries in term of long term capital gain, short term capital gain in the scrip of Twenty First Century (India) Ltd., a listed company with Calcutta Stock Exchange. The assessee was one of the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries in the form of long term capital gain and hence reopening was done and assessment was framed.
The AO during the course of assessment proceedings examined that the assessee made investments in purchase of 2000 shares of Twenty First Century Ltd., on 05.04.2004 amounting to Rs.78,140/-. The assessee furnished copy of share certificates
I.T.A. No.233/Chny/2021 4 dated 21.11.2003. The AO noted that the assessee has purchased the share from Insta Dealers Pvt. Ltd., and the face value of the share was Rs.10 and purchased for a sum of Rs.78,140/- at the rate of Rs.2.55 per share. The assessee sold these shares during financial year 2010-11 relevant to this assessment year 2011-12 at the rate of Rs.32.18 per share for a total consideration of Rs.6,43,600/-. The AO accepted the long term capital gain for the reason that the shares held by the assessee for more than six years from the date of purchase to the date of sales and the amount invested in 2004 was Rs.78,260/- as against sale in 2011 at Rs.6,41,989/-. The AO after examining these aspects framed assessment and treated the assessee’s transactions as genuine.
We noted that the PCIT simply passed revision order by noting that “In case of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has neither applied his mind nor made any enquiry called for all required details to come to a proper conclusion. In fact, the explanation given by the assessee during the present proceedings were never put forth during the assessment proceedings. But the Assessing Officer has accepted the stand taken by the assessee such issues, without applying his mind to the relevant facts and without causing necessary enquiry. Since the twin conditions of the order being erroneous and also being prejudicial to the interests of revenue are satisfied, revisionary proceeding u/s.263 of the Act have been rightly initiated.”
I.T.A. No.233/Chny/2021 5 According to PCIT, the AO has not carried out any enquiry. This is only a short charge. We have gone through the assessment order and noted that the entire facts are noted and the transaction is examined in detail and even the long term capital gain assessed is found to be genuine in the given facts and circumstances of the case. As there is no infirmity in the order of AO and the order of AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue, we reverse the order of PCIT revising the assessment and allow the appeal of assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 6th July, 2022 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (महावीर �सह ) (जी. मंजुनाथ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G. MANJUNATHA) उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद�य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 6th July, 2022 RSR आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु� /CIT 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF.