Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In light of the above facts, it appears to me that the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer is erroneous and is prejudicial to the interest of revenue."

15. The assessee responded to the said notice and explained that it had invested a sum of ₹1,045.00 Crores in non-convertible debentures of Vatika Limited issued for ₹1,000.00 Crores (issue value). The said non-convertible debentures were redeemed by Vatika Limited on 31.03.2016 at a value of ₹1,045.50 Crores. The assessee claimed that it had earned an income from capital gain of ₹50,00,000/- which was duly disclosed in its returns. However, Vatika Limited had deducted TDS at the rate of 10% on the difference between the issue value and the value at with the said debentures were redeemed being ₹45.50 Crores (₹1,045.50 Crores less ₹1,000.00 Crores).

35. Clearly, if the AO could not have made an addition in the taxable income of the assessee for the relevant assessment year, on account of investment made in FDPL shares - which was the AO's reason to believe that the assessee's income had escaped assessment - no addition in respect of any other amount could be made to the assessed taxable income of the assessee in proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act. It follows that the AO's order dated 30.03.2022 could not be held to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the Revenue on account of not making any addition on account of income from interest on non-convertible debentures of Vatika Limited. Thus, in fact, the PCIT passed an order under Section 263 of the Act, which the AO could not have been passed in the reassessment proceedings.