{"id":2948,"date":"2011-04-04T13:04:33","date_gmt":"2011-04-04T07:34:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=2948"},"modified":"2011-04-04T13:04:33","modified_gmt":"2011-04-04T07:34:33","slug":"synergy-entrepreneur-solutions-pvt-ltd-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-s-263-revision-order-if-for-reason-not-stated-in-show-cause-notice-is-invalid","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/synergy-entrepreneur-solutions-pvt-ltd-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-s-263-revision-order-if-for-reason-not-stated-in-show-cause-notice-is-invalid\/","title":{"rendered":"Synergy Entrepreneur Solutions Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=394\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=394&varname2=synergy_263_revision_scn.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (synergy_263_revision_scn.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nS. 263 Revision order, if for reason not stated In show-cause notice, is Invalid<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The assessee, engaged in share trading, claimed set-off of trading losses against trading profits which was accepted by the AO u\/s 143(3). The CIT issued a show-cause notice u\/s 263 in which he claimed that the share trading losses were <em>&#8220;speculation losses&#8221; u\/s 73 and could not be set off against other income<\/em>. Upon the assessee clarifying that under the Explanation to s. 73 the trading losses were eligible to be set-off against the trading profits, the CIT, without rejecting the claim, passed an order u\/s 263 on the ground <em>that the AO had not examined the issue<\/em>. On appeal to the Tribunal, HELD quashing the s. 263 order:<\/p>\n<p>(i) The reason given for the revision in the s. 263 order (<em>that the AO has not verified the issue<\/em>) is different from the reason set out in the show-cause notice  (<em>that speculation loss cannot be set-off against other income<\/em>). <strong>If a ground of revision is not mentioned in the show-cause notice, it cannot be made the basis of the order for the reason that the assessee would have had no opportunity to meet the point<\/strong> (<strong>Maxpack Investments<\/strong> 13 SOT 67 (Del), <strong>G.K. Kabra<\/strong> 211 ITR 336 (AP) &#038; <strong>Jagadhri Electric Supply<\/strong> 140 ITR 490 (P&#038;H) followed);<\/p>\n<p>(ii) On merits, the result of the Explanation to s. 73 is that the <strong>entire profits from trading in shares, even from delivery based transactions, is deemed to be speculation profits<\/strong> and so the assessee is entitled to set off the share trading losses from the share trading profits (<strong><a href=\"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/index.php\/cit-vs-lokmat-newspapers-bombay-high-court-speculation-loss-can-be-set-off-against-delivery-based-profits\">Lokmat Newspapers<\/a><\/strong> 322 ITR 43 (Bom) followed). <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> The reason given for the revision in the s. 263 order (<em>that speculation loss cannot be set-off against other income<\/em>) is different from the reason set out in the show-cause notice (<em>that the AO has not verified the issue<\/em>). If a ground of revision is not mentioned in the show-cause notice, it cannot be made the basis of the order for the reason that the assessee would have had no opportunity to meet the point (<strong>Maxpack Investments<\/strong> 13 SOT 67 (Del), <strong>G.K. Kabra<\/strong> 211 ITR 336 (AP) &#038; <strong>Jagadhri Electric Supply<\/strong> 140 ITR 490 (P&#038;H) followed)<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/synergy-entrepreneur-solutions-pvt-ltd-vs-dcit-itat-mumbai-s-263-revision-order-if-for-reason-not-stated-in-show-cause-notice-is-invalid\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2948","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-tribunal"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2948","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2948"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2948\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2948"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2948"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}