MRS. HEMEDRA KUMAR PINKY, CHENNAI V. ITO WARD 1, KANCHIPURAM

ITA 1302/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2716 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B SMC BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1300/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SMT.MAHAVEERCHAND PADMINI BAI , 71,MADHAV NAGAR, KATRAMBAKKAM,IRUNGATTUKOTTAI, CHENNAI 602 117. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KANCHEEPURAM. [PAN ACSPD 8007 G ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.1301/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SHRI HEMENDRA KUMAR , 71,MADHAV NAGAR, KATRAMBAKKAM,IRUNGATTUKOTTAI, CHENNAI 602 117. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KANCHEEPURAM. [PAN AEUPK 8930 K] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NO.1302/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SHRI HEMENDRA KUMAR PINKY , 71,MADHAV NAGAR, KATRAMBAKKAM,IRUNGATTUKOTTAI, CHENNAI 602 117. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, KANCHEEPURAM, [PAN AAUPU 6762 D] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.ANAND,ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.SAGADEVAN,JCIT,D.R ! '# / DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 1 0 - 201 8 $% ! '# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 - 1 0 - 201 8 ITA NO.1300 TO 1302/CHNY/18 :- 2 -: / O R D E R ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S. ITA NO.1300/CHNY/2018 IS THE APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNA I IN ITA NO.164/16-17/CIT(A)-7,CHENNAI, ITA NO.1301/CHNY/201 8 IS THE APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.165/16-17/CIT(A)-7, CHENNAI AND ITA NO.1302/CHNY/2018 IS THE APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-7, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.163/16- 17/CIT(A)-7, CHENNAI ALL DATED 28.11.2017 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. SHRI D.ANAND REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI B.SAGADEVAN REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. AS ALL THESE THREE APPEALS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES I NVOLVED IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE SAME IS DISPOSED OFF BY THIS C OMMON ORDER. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD.A.R THAT THE ISSUE IN THI S APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY NOT ACCEPTING THE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAINS ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF CERTAIN SHARES TREATED BY THE A.O AS PENNY STOCK. ITA NO.1300 TO 1302/CHNY/18 :- 3 -: 5. IN REPLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD.D.R THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOW SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BEN CH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK BHATTAD (HUF) FOR ASSESSMENT YEASR 2014-15 IN ITA NO.1287/MDS/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.09.2018 W HEREIN THE A SMC BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS:- 6. THE FACT SITUATION HERE, IS SIMILAR TO THE ABOV E TWO CASES DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE O PINION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHETHER REAL O R SHAM, REQUIRES A REVISIT BY THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILAR DIR ECTIONS AS GIVEN IN THE CASES OF VIMA/CHAND GA/A BC/LAND, PRAVEEN CHAND , GATRAF IA/N & SONS (HUF) AND MA HEN DRA KUMAR BHANDARI (SUPRA), R EAD ALONG WITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF HEERACHAND KANU NGA (SUPRA) ARE GIVEN HERE ALSO. USEFUL REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO TH E LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNITA DHADDA, SLP (CIVIL) NO.9432/2018, DATED 28.03.2018, WHILE AFFIR MING A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.SMT. SUN/TA DHADDA, WHERE THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING AN OPPORT UNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS HAS BEEN STRESSED. THEIR LORDSH IP HELD THAT THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT CONSTITUENT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ON LY AFTER ALL THE STEPS REQUIRED UNDER LAW IS COMPLETE, IT CAN BE ASC ERTAINED WHETHER CLAIM OF CAPITAL GAINS WAS BOGUS OR NOT. WE THEREFO RE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ON IDENTICAL DIRECTIONS, T HE ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS CAN ALSO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER. ITA NO.1300 TO 1302/CHNY/18 :- 4 -: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ISSUES IN THESE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK BHATTAD (HUF) REFERRED TO SUPRA AND IN FACT, THE SHARES TRANSACTED IN ARE OF THE SAME COMPANY, THE ISSUES I N THESE APPEALS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR R E-ADJUDICATION IN LINE WITH THE DECISION OF THE A (SMC) BENCH OF THIS TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK BHATTAD (HUF) REFERRED TO SUPRA. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 23 RD OCTOBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER & / CHENNAI ' / DATED: 23 RD OCTOBER, 2018. K S SUNDARAM (!)* +*! / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ,!- . / CIT(A) 5. */0!1 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ,! / CIT 6. 023 / GF