Mrs. Binal Parixit Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 94/AHD/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3669 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AMAN SHAH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Revision of order; Cost of acquisition; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 142(1); 234B; 143(1); 2(A); 148; 6; 263; 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD (THROUGH WEB-BASED VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM) ] ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.94/AHD/2021 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12 MRS. BINAL PARIXIT PATEL, C/O. KETAN H. SHAH, ADVOCATE, 512, TIMES SQUARE-I, OPP. RAM BAUG BUNGALOW, THALTEJ SHILAJ ROAD, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD PAN : BFGPP 8427 L VS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDABAD-3 / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KETAN SHAH, AR AND SHRI AMAN SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI, CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING : 19/07/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12/10/2021 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT : THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-3, AHMEDABAD (PCIT IN SHORT) DATED 29.0 3.2021, PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN EI GHT GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH ARE ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. IN BRIEF, HER G RIEVANCES REVOLVE AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE NAMELY THE LEARNED PCIT HAS ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT) AND SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2018 DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A VERY SHORT ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL, I.E. ITA NO. 94/AHD/2021 MRS. BINAL PARIXIT PATEL VS. PCIT AY : 2011-12 2 WHETHER THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER, WHILE EXERCISING THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, CAN TAKE UP A NEW ISSUE OUT OF RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER/PROCEEDINGS INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO ADDIT ION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE POINT FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ORIGINALLY FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 07.07.2012 DECLARING NIL INCOME. IT WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTI ON 143(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT AN INFORMATIO N AND HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE REASONS FOR THE REOPENING, AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, READ AS UNDER:- RECORDING OF REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE I.T.ACT NAME OF ASSESSEE : BINAL PARIXITBHAI PATEL ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE : 16, ABHISHREE RESIDENCY- IV AMBALI, TALUKA DASCROI, AHMEDABAD-380059. PAN : BFGPP8427L AY : 2011-12 THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE IS AN 'INDIVIDUAL'. THE ASSESSEE HAS E-FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12 ON 07.07.2012 DECLARING NIL TOTAL INCOME VIDE ACK. NO.406146280070712. THE CASE PERTAINS TO THIS WARD. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE ITO, WARD- 5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF M/S. NAMI PARIXIT METAL INDUSTRIES FOR A.Y. 2011-12, IT HAS BEEN FOUN D THAT THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM VIZ. BINAL PARIXITBHAI PATEL (THE ASSESSEE) HA S TRANSFERRED HER CAPITAL ASSET I.E. OPEN PLOT OF N.A. INDUSTRIAL LAND SITUAT ED AT SURVEY NO.152(1) OF MOUJE KHODA, TALUKA SANAND, DIST AHMEDABAD TO THE S AID FIRM M/S. NAMI PARIXIT METAL INDUSTRIES BY WAY OF CAPITAL CONTRIBU TION. AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, THE SAID FIRM HAS RECORDED TH E VALUE IN ITS BOOKS. THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SEC.45(3) OF THE IT ACT WE RE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO COMPUTE THE GAINS ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSFER ADOPTING THE VALUE AS PE R REVALUATION DONE AND AS ITA NO. 94/AHD/2021 MRS. BINAL PARIXIT PATEL VS. PCIT AY : 2011-12 3 PER THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN IN SEC.45(3) OF THE IX ACT AND OFFER THE CAPITAL GAIN FOR TAXATION. 2. VIDE LETTER DATED 07.03.2018 EMAILED TO THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF M/S. NAMI PARIXIT METAL INDUSTRIES FOR A.Y. 2011-12 WERE CALLED FOR WHICH HAVE BEEN FORWAR DED BY THE CONCERNED AO. ON SCRUTINY OF THE SAID CASE RECORDS, COPY OF P ARTNER'S CAPITAL ACCOUNTS (INCLUDING ASSESSEE'S CAPITAL A/C.), RETURN OF INCO ME AND THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO FO UND PLACED ON RECORD. ON VERIFICATION OF THE CAPITAL A/C. OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF THE SAID FIRM, IT IS NOTICED THAT RS.1,42,50,000/- HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE ASSESSEE'S PARTNER'S CAPITAL ACCOUNT ON A/C. OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET I.E. OPEN PLOT OF NON- AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIAL LAND AT SURVEY NO.152(1) OF SANAND TALUKA BEING HER SHARE IN THE SAID CAPITAL ASSET. ON VERIFICATION OF ITR AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPUTED ANY GAIN ARISING FROM SUCH TRANSFER AND OFFERED THE RESULTANT CAPITAL GAIN FOR TAXATION. 3. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSETS TRANSFERRED AND VALUED OF RS.1,42,50,000 /- BEING ASSESSEE'S SHARE IN THE SAID CAPITAL ASSET REVALUED, HAS ESCAPED ASS ESSMENT FOR A.Y.2011-12 IN THE CASE OF BINAL PARIXITBHAI PATEL, PAN BFGPPB427L AND THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2011-12. SD/- (B.S. RAO) INCOME TAX OFFICER DATE : 09.03.2018 WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER ON 24.12.2018 UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT. HE ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME AT NIL. THIS IS A BRIEF ASSESSMENT ORDER A ND THE RELEVANT PART READS AS UNDER:- 2. THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DATED 26.03.2018 HAS BEEN ISSUED AND DULY SERVED UPON. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF TH E ACT WAS ISSUED ON 07.08.2018 & 05.09.2018 REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT DETAILS PERTAINING TO THE REASONS FOR SCRUTINY SELECTION. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 01.11.2018 AND 17.12.2018 REPLY WHICH WAS PERUSED AND PLACED ON RE CORD. ITA NO. 94/AHD/2021 MRS. BINAL PARIXIT PATEL VS. PCIT AY : 2011-12 4 3. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT DA TED 26.03.2018, ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.04.2018 BUT THE SA ME WAS NOT E-VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATIO N AVAILABLE ON THE RECORDS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, T HE ASSESSMENT IS BEING MADE U/S 144 OF THE I.T. ACT I.E. BEST JUDGMENT ASS ESSMENT BY THIS ORDER. 4. SUBJECT TO ABOVE REMARKS AND DISCUSSION, TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- RS,. TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN OF INCOME NIL ASSESSED INCOME NIL ASSESSED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT. CALCU LATE TAX, CHARGE INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C AS APPLICABLE, GIVE CREDIT FOR PREPAID TAXES AFTER DUE VERIFICATION AND ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE / REFUND ACCOR DINGLY. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER PERUSED THE RECORD AND FORMED AN OPINION THAT THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE SOUGHT TO REVISE THIS ORDER THOUGH SPE CIFIC SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN PL ACED BEFORE US; BUT, THE PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WOULD INDICATE THAT T HE REASONS FOR WHICH IT WAS SOUGHT TO BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS AND REQUIRED TO BE REVISED BY EXERCISING THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DISCUSSION READS AS UNDER:- 2. ON VERIFICATION OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD SHARES AMOUNTING TO RS.86.13,138/- AND HAVE DE CLARED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AFTER INDEXATION AT RS.7,22,791/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS-WORKED OUT LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) FROM THIS TRANSAC TION AT RS.78,90,347/-. FURTHER, ON VERIFICATION, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S.54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G/54GA OF THE ACT OF RS.73,59,067/- AND THE BALANCE LTCG AMOUNT OF RS.5,31,280/- HAS BE EN SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS LOSS OF RS.6,19,329/-. 3. ON FURTHER VERIFICATION OF RE-ASSESSMENT RECORDS , IT IS NOTICED THAT NO DETAILS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN RES PECT OF THE ABOVE ITA NO. 94/AHD/2021 MRS. BINAL PARIXIT PATEL VS. PCIT AY : 2011-12 5 TRANSACTIONS ARE FOUND ON RECORD. IT IS FURTHER NOT ICED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE PARTICULAR SECTION OF TH E I.T. ACT UNDER WHICH THE EXEMPTION/DEDUCTION HAS BEEN CLAIMED OUT OF THE LTC G DERIVED NOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE SALE OF SHARES A ND HUGE LTCG EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO COLLECT DETAILS AND EVIDENCES FROM THE ASSESSEE AND IF FURTHER REQU IRED, TO CONDUCT THIRD PARTY ENQUIRIES AND VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE S ALE OF SHARES, DEDUCTION CLAIMED AND SET OFF OF LTCG AGAINST BUSINESS LOSS, CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION / EXEMPTIO N AND SET OFF OF LTCG AGAINST BUSINESS LOSSES ONLY AFTER DERIVING CONCLUS IONS ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS AND EVIDENCES COLLECTED AS A RESULT OF ANY INVESTIG ATION. HOWEVER, WHILE PASSING THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER, NO DETAILS/SUPPORT ING EVIDENCES WAS COLLECTED AND INVESTIGATION WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO VERIFY THE CORR ECTNESS OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND ITS INDEXATION VALUE CLAIMED AT RS. 7,22,791/-, DEDUCTION CLAIMED OF RS.73,59,067/- AND ALSO THE SET OFF OF B ALANCE LTCG OF RS.5,31,280/- AGAINST BUSINESS LOSS. 4. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION 2(A) OF SE CTION 263 OF THE ACT, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144 R.W.S 147 DATED 24.12.2018 HAS BECOME ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND REQUIRES TO BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE DTD.08.01.2021 VIDE DIN NO. ITBA/COM/S/91/2020-21/1029737951(1) ON 13.0 1.2021. ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: (I) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED OF RS .73,59,067/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S.148 OF THE ACT. (N) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE INDEXED COST OF ACQ UISITION CLAIMED BY YOU AT RS.7,22,791/-. THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSE E BY MAIL ON 13.01.2021. COMPLIANCE WAS CALLED FOR BY 18.01.2021. HOWEVER, N O RESPONSE HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DATE OF PASSING THIS ORDER, AND HENCE IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OF FER IN THIS REGARD. .. .. .. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO VERIFY THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED OF RS.73,59,067/- IN THE RETURN O F INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE ITA NO. 94/AHD/2021 MRS. BINAL PARIXIT PATEL VS. PCIT AY : 2011-12 6 TO NOTICE U/S.148 AS WELL AS THE COST OF ACQUISITIO N AFTER INDEXATION CLAIMED AT RS.7,22,791/- WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. SUCH LACK ON THE PART OF THE AO HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO EXAMINE AND TO APPLY THE CORRECT POSITION APPLICABLE AS PER LAW. THERE IS AB SOLUTE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD AND IT IS SUCH FAILURE WHICH CALLS FOR REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT . 6. A PERUSAL OF THE REASONS EXTRACTED SUPRA, IT WOU LD REVEAL THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT TO REOPEN THE ASSE SSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ESCAPEMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF AN INDUSTRIAL PLOT. IN OTHER WORDS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHE HAS TRANSFERRED AN INDUSTRIAL PLOT TO M/S. NAMI PARIXIT METAL INDUSTRIES AND THE CAPITAL GAIN AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH TRANSFER HAS NOT BEEN TAXED. HOWEV ER, NO ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER DID NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER FOR NOT TAXING THE CAPITAL GAIN AROSE TO THE ASSESSEE ON AC COUNT OF TRANSFER OF INDUSTRIAL PLOT BEARING NO.152(1) OF MOUJE KHODA, T AL. SANAND, DIST. AHMEDABAD. HE TOOK UP ALTOGETHER A NEW ISSUE, I.E. LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AROSE TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SH ARES AND CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54/54B/54D/54EC/54F/54G/54G A ETC, AS DISCERNABLE FROM THE FACTS DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IN PARAGRAPH NOS. 2-4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER EXTRACTED SUPRA. 7. IT IS PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT SECTION 147 OF T HE ACT CONTAINS FOLLOWING EXPRESSION:- IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THA T ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, HE MAY, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 148 TO 153, ASSESS OR REASS ESS SUCH INCOME AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT AND WHICH COME TO HIS NOTICE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF PR OCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 94/AHD/2021 MRS. BINAL PARIXIT PATEL VS. PCIT AY : 2011-12 7 IN THESE LINES, EXPRESSION USED AND ALSO ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE R E-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN CONSTRUED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT AS WELL AS HONBLE DELHI AND BOMBAY HIGH COURTS IN THE CASES O F CIT VS. MOHMED JUNDED DADANI (2013) 355 ITR 172 (GUJ); RANBAXY LAB ORATORIES LTD. VS. CIT, 336 ITR 136 (DEL) AND CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD 3 31 ITR 236 (BOM.). ALL THE THREE HONBLE COURTS ARE UNANIMOUS IN CONCLUDIN G THAT THE EXPRESSION AND ALSO WOULD GIVE AN INDICATION THAT ANY OTHER POINT EXHIBITING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME COMES TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD ONLY BE ENTERTAINED IF ADDITION IS BEING MADE ON THE POINT FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT IS BEING REO PENED. IN OTHER WORDS, IF NO ADDITION IS BEING MADE ON THE POINT FOR WHICH ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REOPENED, THEN ANY OTHER POINT EXHIBITING THE ESCAP EMENT OF INCOME COMES TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL NOT BE ENTERTAINED. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID N OT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THE ISSUE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED - MEANING THEREBY THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BECOME FINAL. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER CANNOT EXPLORE ANY OTHER ISSUE UNDER SECTION 263 WHICH EVE N CANNOT BE EXPLORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; BECAUSE, ON THE ORIGINAL POINT ON WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED, NO ADDITION WAS MADE. THE JURISDICTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER IS CONFINE D TO THE ISSUES ON WHICH AN ASSESSMENT IS REOPENED AND EXAMINED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE OTHER ISSUES CAN ONLY BE ENTERTAINED IF ADDITION IS BEING MADE ON THE ISSUE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. WE CAN MAK E IT VERY CLEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ANY ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TRANSFER OF INDUSTRIAL PLOT, THEN OTHER POINTS COULD ALSO BE EXAMINED. SIMILARLY, LEARNED C OMMISSIONER COULD ALSO BE FOUND OUT A FAULT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUA T HE ISSUE OF TRANSFER OF ITA NO. 94/AHD/2021 MRS. BINAL PARIXIT PATEL VS. PCIT AY : 2011-12 8 INDUSTRIAL PLOT. IF THAT ASPECT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE; THEREAFTER OTHER ASPECTS ON THE ISSUE OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS WOULD AL SO BE EXAMINED; BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADDITION ON THE FIRST POINT, NO OTHE R ISSUE CAN BE ENTERTAINED, EVEN UNDER REVISIONAL JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 TH OCTOBER 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD, DATED 12/10/2021 *BT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) ( / THE CIT(A)- 5. , , /DR,ITAT, AHMEDABAD, 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION- 11.10.2021 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 11.10.2021 OTHER MEMBER 12.10.2021. 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S. - 12.10.2021 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 12.10.2021.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 12.10.2021. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER