Gaurav Kumar Arya Vs PCIT (ITAT Delhi)
Revision u/s 263 Quashed: No Specific Error Identified by PCIT
Delhi ITAT quashed the revisionary order passed u/s 263, holding that the PCIT failed to identify any specific error in the reassessment order.
Assessee’s case was reopened based on Investigation Wing inputs alleging that shares of Safal Herbs Ltd. were used for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG. During reassessment, the AO issued notices, obtained replies, examined the transactions, & categorically recorded that although the Assessee earned LTCG of Rs.6,71,600/-, the sale was through stock exchange, the consideration was genuine & routed through banking channels, & no direct exchange of cash existed. Hence, the AO consciously accepted the returned income.
PCIT, however, invoked Explanation 2(a) to s.263 alleging lack of enquiry, but failed to point out any actual error in the AO’s order.
ITAT noted that PCIT relied only on general probabilities without demonstrating how the AO’s view was unsustainable in law. Referring to DG Housing Projects Ltd (Delhi HC) & holding that a revision u/s 263 must identify a clear, demonstrable error causing prejudice to Revenue, Tribunal concluded that the PCIT’s action was unjustified. The revision order dated 28.03.2024 was therefore set aside & the Assessee’s appeal was allowed.
