| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 0206 (Chd-Trib) : (2019) 202 TTJ 0030 INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 263
Assessee in response to query raised by AO furnished all the documents relating to investments in concerned shares and proof of sale of shares for claiming exemption under section 10(38), therefore, it could not be said that AO had not made enquiries or assessee did not furnish relevant documents in support of claim, therefore, order passed by AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
|
Revision under section 263 - Erroneous and prejudicial order - No lack of enquiry as alleged by Pr. CIT -
CIT held Order, passed by AO erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue on the ground that AO without making any enquiry allowed assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(38) in relation to long-term capital gain on sale of shares.Held: Assessee in response to query raised by AO furnished all the documents relating to investments in concerned shares and proof of sale of shares for claiming exemption under section 10(38), therefore, it could not be said that AO had not made enquiries or assessee did not furnish relevant documents in support of claim and, therefore, order passed by AO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial.
Relied:Pr. CIT v. Delhi Airport Metro Express (P) Ltd. (2017) 398 ITR 8 (Del) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4058 (Del-HC), ITO v. DG Housing Projects Ltd. (2012) 74 DTR (Del) 153 : (2012) 343 ITR 329 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 1727 (Del-HC) and DIT v. Jyoti Foundation (2013) 357 ITR 388 (Del) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2463 (Del-HC).
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour.
A.Y. : 2013-14
IN THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH 'B' BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|