Sumitra Bai, Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1596/Hyd/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2517 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M NARMADA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A SMC BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA. NO. 1596 /HYD/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 2008 SUMITRA BAI, HYDERABAD. PAN: AGKPB 4157 D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(3), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: NONE FOR REVENUE : SMT. M. NARMADA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 22.02 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.02.2018 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN , VP. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) - 5, HYDERABAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. 2. THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT (DULY ACKNOWLEDGED) TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE REGISTRY AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36, ON THE DATE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARIN G, NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT, NO MATERIAL WAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 3. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF MAHASAGAR GROUP, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WERE FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS AND SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI, DIRECTOR OF THE GROUP, ADMITTED THAT HE AND HIS GROUP WERE ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT BILLING ACTIVITIES AND IN GIVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE CLIENTS TO DECLARE SPECULATION PR OFIT / LOSS, SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS WELL AS FACILITATING INTRODUCTION OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 2 SHRI CHOKSI IDENTIFIED 829 NAMES OF THE BENEFICIARIES WHEREIN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO INCLUDED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT FURNISH EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS, THE A.O. TREATED THE INCOME ON SALE OF SHARES OF BLUE PRINT SECURITIES AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE B E E N TREATED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS PLACED EVEN AT THIS STAGE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, UPON HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EV IDENCE AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2018. S D / - (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED: 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2018. OKK, SR.PS COPY TO 1. SUMITRA BAI, 6 - 56 - 2, OPP. IDPL, BALANAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(3), HYDERABAD.Q 3. CIT (A ) - 5, HYDERABAD . 4. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, HYDERABAD . 5. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE