Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26-09-2019 passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the PCIT -4, Kolkata] for the AY 2015-16.
At the time of hearing when the case was called for neither assessee nor his Authorized Representative appeared before us nor any adjournment application was filed. Therefore, we are disposed off the appeal after hearing the Ld. DR and after taking into account the facts of the case and material available on record.
The sole ground of appeal raised by the assessee is against the revisionary jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT u/s. 263 of the Act holding the assessment to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.
Rahul Chowdhary 4. The facts in brief that the assessment in this case the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by order dated 30-05- 2017 assessing the total income at Rs. 34,92,710/-. The assessee filed e-return on 20-08-2015 declaring total income of Rs. 14,78,080/- after claiming exemption in respect of of long term capital gain on sale of shares of Rs. 31,83,190/- u/s. 10(38) of the Act. In the assessment framed the AO observed during the course of assessment proceedings that the assessee has done dealing in shares of Unno Industries Ltd and CCL International Ltd and both are being Penny Stocks. Therefore, out of capital gain of Rs. 31,83,190/- the AO treated the capital gain of Rs. 20,14,623/- as income from other sources and brought the same to tax accordingly whereas Rs. 11,68,567/- was allowed by the AO to be exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act.
The PCIT on examination of the assessment records found that the AO has failed to examine the transactions of long term capital gain and accordingly revised the assessment order by exercising jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act by directing the AO to carry out full enquiry with regard to genuineness of the transactions after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and frame the assessment denovo accordingly.
After hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the facts on record, we find that the AO has accepted the exempt income to the tune of Rs. 11,68,567/- by allowing exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act whereas remaining of Rs. 20,14,623/- was brought to tax. During the course of hearing before us the ld. DR vehemently brought to our notice that the capital gain of Rs. 11,68,567/- was not examined by the AO at all and therefore, the revisional jurisdiction has been validly exercised by the PCIT. After perusing the facts on record, we do not find any material to controvert the finding of the PCIT and accordingly,
Rahul Chowdhary revisional jurisdiction exercised by the PCIT is upheld by dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.02.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Kolkata, Dated:08.02.2022 **PP, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1.The Appellant: Rahul Chowdhary, 2 Rowland Road, Kolkata-700 020. 2.The Respondent: ITO., Ward 10(2) Kolkata, Aaykar Bhawan, 3rd Fl., P-7 Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700 069.
3. The CIT, Concerned, Kolkata 4.The CIT (A) Concerned, Kolkata 5.The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// [ By Order
Sr. Private Secretary/DDO ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata