Pardeep Kumar Aggarwal, Ludhiana V. Pr. CIT-1, Ludhiana

ITA 1056/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4556 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTI
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Accommodation entries; Set aside
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , () BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1056/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SH. PARDEEP KUMAR AGGARWAL, 7, COUNTRY HOMES, BAREWAL BRIDGE, SOUTH CITY, LUDHIANA THE PR. CIT, LUDHIANA ./PAN NO: ADGPA3453N / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE ' ! / REVENUE BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTI, CIT DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2019 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15. 05.2019 (*/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2018 OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1, LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS PCIT] AGITA TING THE ACTION OF THE LD. PCIT IN INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 263 AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 30.11.2015 FOR DO NOVO ASSESSMENT. ITA NO. 1056-CHD-2018- M/S PRADEEP KUMAR AGGARWAL, LUDHIANA 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR DECLARED CERTAIN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SA LE OF SHARES TO M/S ACCESS GLOBAL LTD / MAPLE GOODS PVT LTD. THE LD. PC IT GOT SOME INFORMATION THAT THE AFORESAID COMPANY M/S ACCESS GLOBAL LTD WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES / BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL GAINS. HE, THEREFORE, EXERCISED HIS REVISION JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE DEEP INQUIRIES REGARD ING SALE / PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARES CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FROM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN QUEST ION. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ER RONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND ACCORDIN GLY SET ASIDE THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT AFRESH. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVIT ED OUR ATTENTION TO THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE DUE AND APPROPRIATE INQU IRIES REGARDING THE AFORESAID SALE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSE SSEE IN SHARES RESULTING INTO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. TH AT ON BEING ENQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY FUR NISHED THE DETAILS RELATING TO PURCHASE OF SHARES, THE SOURCE OF INVES TMENT, THE NAMES AND DETAILS OF THE PARTIES ETC. BUT HAS ALSO DULY PROVI DED ALL THE DETAILS AT THE ITA NO. 1056-CHD-2018- M/S PRADEEP KUMAR AGGARWAL, LUDHIANA 3 TIME OF SALE OF THE SHARES INCLUDING THE BANK DETAI LS OF THE ASSESSEE. SPECIFIC DETAILS WERE FURNISHED REGARDING THE AFORE SAID SHARE TRANSACTIONS TO SHOW THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASE D IN THE YEAR 2010 AND SOLD DURING THE YEAR. THE PURCHASED SHARES WE RE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS FOR THE YEAR 2010 AND WERE SHOWN I N THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE SALE OF SHARES, CA PITAL GAINS WERE DULY SHOWN AND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EVIDENCES GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL, THEREFORE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE LD. PCIT GOT INFORMATION FROM SOME OTHER APPELLATE ORDER THA T THE AFORESAID COMPANY M/S ACCESS GLOBAL LTD WAS INDULGED IN PROVI DING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, THEREFORE, LD. PCIT HAS RIGH TLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES PLACED ON FILE REVEALS THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DULY EXAMINED THE GENUINENESS OF SHARE TRANSACTION S IN QUESTION. THE SHARES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2010 W ERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AND SHOWN IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 1056-CHD-2018- M/S PRADEEP KUMAR AGGARWAL, LUDHIANA 4 DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SOLD THE AF ORESAID SHARES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DULY ENQUIRED ABOUT THE ENTIRE TR ANSACTIONS INCLUDING BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCES A ND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUSPECT THE AFO RESAID TRANSACTIONS OR TO PROMPT HIM TO MAKE FURTHER DEEP ENQUIRES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AS SUCH. IF THE LD. PCIT HAD GOT SOME INFORMATION ABOUT SOME SUSPICION TRANSACTIONS BY THE COMPANY NAMELY M /S ACCESS GLOBAL LTD OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED SHARES, WHI CH INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIM E OF PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEN, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS. MOREOVER, NO SPECI FIC INFORMATION ABOUT ANY BOGUS TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE PCIT. THE LD. PCIT SUSPECTED ABOUT THE GEN UINENESS OF THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ON T HE BASIS OF WHICH HE HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS, WHICH IN OUR VIEW, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. FOR I NVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263, ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MUST BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HOWEVER, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS. ITA NO. 1056-CHD-2018- M/S PRADEEP KUMAR AGGARWAL, LUDHIANA 5 6. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PCI T U/S 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE S AME IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RES TORED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS HER EBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.05.2019 SD/- SD/- ( $ % & '# / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15. 05.2019 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR