| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2533 (Kol-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263 Section 10(38)
Pr. CIT erred in doubting genuineness of assessee's long-term capital gains on sale of shares, where AO in order to verify genuineness of transaction of sale of shares had issued section 133(6) notices during the course of scrutiny which stood adequately replied in assessee's favour.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - Pr. CIT alleging failure of AO to examine all factual aspects prima facie indicating lack of genuineness of long-term capital gains claimed as exempt under section 10(38) -
Pr.CIT held order passed by AO as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground of AO not having examined genuineness of long-term capital gain on sale of shares claimed as exempt under section 10(38). Held: AO in order to verify genuineness of transaction of sale of shares had issued section 133(6) notices during the course of scrutiny which stood adequately replied in assessee's favour. Coupled with this, all the relevant factual details such as share purchase document, contract notes and bank statement were already on record before AO. Also, there was not even an iota of material quoted against assessee to have been engaged in artificial price rigging. Accordinlgy, Pr. CIT erred in doubting genuineness of assessee's long-term capital gains based on all supporting evidences, and, therefore, order passed under section 263 was set aside.
Followed:ITA Nos. 1-5 and 13-15/Kol/2019 : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 6570 (Kol-Trib) and M/s. Gitish Tikmani, HUF & Ors. v. ITO, dated 20-9-2019
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2013-14
IN THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |