ACIT, New Delhi V. Sh Pramode Kumar Gupta, Delhi

ITA 1604/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6461 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KARTAR SINGH CITA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT GOEL
• Section: 54F

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 1604/DEL/2010 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND SHRI LALIT KUMAR, J UDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-1604/DEL/2010 (ASSESSM ENT YEAR-2006-07) ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7, ROOM NO. 363, E-2, ARA CENTRE, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS PRAMODE KUMAR GUPTA B-1/26, YAMUNA VIHAR, DELHI AEGPG9999G (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. KARTAR SINGH CIT(A) (DR) RESPONDENT BY SH. AMIT GOEL, CA ORDER PER LALIT KUMAR, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS 1) NEW DEL HI DATED 14/01/2010, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 07. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- DATE OF HEARING 10.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.03.2016 2 ITA NO. 1604/DEL/2010 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A) CIT(A) IS NOT CORREC T IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.62,90,000/- MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT ACCEPTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DOCUMENT FOUND DU RING THE SURVEY WHEN SECTION 292C OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY PRESU MES THE DOCUMENT TO BE GENUINE AND ITS CONTENTS TO BE TRUE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 7/9/2006, DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1 1,15,970/-. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) ON 3 1/12/2008 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 72 40,925/-, IN TER ALIA MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 62, 90, 000/ ON ACCOUNT OF ALLE GED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES. THE AO HAS CONSIDER ED DEDUCTION U/S 54F ACT. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APP EAL. THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALLOWS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE AGREED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD SH. KARTAR SINGH LD. CIT (VR) ON B EHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SRI AMIT GOEL THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS EXPAT THE BRIEF FACTS OF T HE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HA S SOLD 20,000 LEAGUES THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY NAMELY RS BILL 2 B PBT LIMITED 3 ITA NO. 1604/DEL/2010 AS PER THE TABLE BELOW IS EXTRACT TABLE ALL THE ABO VE SHAREHOLDERS ARE FAMILY MEMBERS THE ABOVE SHAREHOLDERS SOLD UP OF SH ARES TO JAMIL HARM AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AS A MIGHTY HITS INTERN ATIONAL BUILDERS PRIVATE THE SALE PRICE SHOWN AND DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN WAS RS. 1 25/ PER SHARE CONSEQUENT TO SELL REACTIO N U/S1 30 3A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THA T AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 39/50 PER SALE WAS THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION A ND THAT RS. 1 25 PER SHARE WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT RS. 3 14.50 PER SHARE WAS NOT REPLIED BY THE ASSESSING THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER RECOMPUTED THE TO GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED SLIC E OF 439.50 PER SHARE INSTEAD OF RS. 1 25/ PER SHARE. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL AND THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY GR ANTED RELIEF. 5. THE ISSUE NOW ON HAND IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE DECISION OF THE COURT MET BENCH OF THE ITA T IN ITA NUMBER 01/06/2003/DTS/2010 AND ITA NO. 1211/DAILY/11 IN TH E CASE OF SH. VINOD KUMAR GUPTA AND SH. BROMAL GUPTA RESPECTI VELY ORDER DATED 23/12/2015. WHO ARE RATHER SHAREHOLDERS IN WH OSE CASES ARE SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE VERY SAME FACTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RESTORED THE M ATTER TO ITAT FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. PURSUANCE OF SUCH DIRECTIONS TH E TRIBUNAL PASSED THIS ORDER CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN TH EREIN WE UPHOLD 4 ITA NO. 1604/DEL/2010 THE ORDER OF THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DISMIS S THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (LALIT KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER DATED: 11/03/2016 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR AR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 ITA NO. 1604/DEL/2010 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 11/03/2016 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11/03/2016 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2016 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 11.03.2016 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 11.03.2016 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. 6 ITA NO. 1604/DEL/2010