Case Number: ITA 708/DEL/2021
Appellant: Rahul Mittal, Delhi
Respondent: Pr. CIT-10, New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Case Filed On: 2021-06-14
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-11-21
Pronounced On: 2022-11-21
Before: Shri N.K. Billaiya, Accountant Member and Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member
This appeal was filed by Rahul Mittal against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT), Delhi-10 dated 22.03.2021 for the assessment year 2015-16. The Pr. CIT had invoked his jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 13.11.2017, which assessed the income of the appellant at Rs. 17,73,493.
Rahul Mittal challenged the jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. The main issue was the allegation that the AO failed to properly enquire about the transactions related to capital gains, which the appellant claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act.
The PCIT issued a notice assuming jurisdiction under section 263, alleging that the AO had not properly verified transactions involving capital gains claimed as exempt under section 10(38). The appellant responded with detailed submissions and documentary evidence.
The AO had initially examined the appellant’s transactions, which included the sale of shares resulting in capital gains. The appellant provided detailed replies, including bank statements, Demat account details, and contracts related to share transactions.
The PCIT alleged that the AO’s order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue because it did not properly scrutinize the sudden rise in share prices and the capital gains claimed.
The tribunal examined the case records, noting that the AO had indeed made specific enquiries and considered the documentary evidence provided by the appellant. The tribunal found that the AO’s order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue’s interest, as all necessary enquiries were made, and the assessment was conducted in accordance with the law.
The tribunal referred to several judicial precedents to support its decision, including:
The tribunal concluded that the power of revision under section 263 was not applicable in this case, as the AO had conducted proper enquiries and the assessment order was in accordance with the law. The tribunal set aside the order of the PCIT and restored the AO’s order dated 13.11.2017.
This summary provides an overview of the key points and conclusions from the ITAT order in the case of Rahul Mittal vs. Pr. CIT Delhi-10 for the assessment year 2015-16.
Rahul Mittal vs. Pr. CIT Delhi-10 – Case Filed for Jurisdiction Challenge
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform