MS. JAISHREE BAMBOLY, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 10 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 1679/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2589 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AR V SREENIVASAN IRS JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Share purchase agreement; Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.1679 /CHNY/2018. / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-2015. MS. JAISHREE BOMBOLY, NO.4B, PROF. SUBRAMANIAM STREET, KILPAUK, CHENNAI 600 010. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. NON CORPORATE WARD 10(2) CHENNAI. [PAN: AEGPJ 7451L] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE $%! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. AR V. SREENIVASAN, IRS, JCIT & ' ' () /DATE OF HEARING : 08.11.2018 *+ ' () /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.11.2018 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 27.03.2018 OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, CHENNAI, IT IS AGGRIEVED ON DENIAL OF EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF B47,06,741/-, ARISING ON TRAN SFER OF SHARES CLAIMED U/S.10(38) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND TREATING A SUM OF B49,57,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S.68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1679 /2018 :- 2 -: 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAD SOLD 1,25,000 SHARES OF ONE M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LT D FOR A CONSIDERATION OF B49,57,500/- AND EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF B47,06,741/- ARISING FROM SUCH SALE, WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMP T U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DISBELIEVED THE SALE OF THE SHARES, RELYING ON REP ORTS OF DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) KOLKATA AND DELHI, WHICH MENTIONED THAT M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD WAS A PENNY STOCK COM PANY. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD INITIAL LY PURCHASED 1,25,000 SHARES OF M/S. CAREFUL PROJECTS ADVISORY SERVICES LTD WHICH WAS LATER MERGED WITH M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED EQ UAL NUMBER OF SHARES IN THE LATTER COMPANY ON SUCH MERGER, WHICH WAS UND ER A SCHEME APPROVED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. CONTENTIO N OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT PURCHASE OF THE SHARES OF M/S. CAREFUL PROJECTS ADVISORY SERVICES LTD WAS GENUINE THOUGH IT WAS DONE OFF MARKET. THE SALE OF 1,25,000 SHARES OF M/S. KAI LASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., RECEIVED ON MERGER OF M/S. CAREFUL PROJECTS A DVISORY SERVICES LTD, WITH THE FORMER WAS AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE MADE THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE AND OUGHT NOT HA VE BEEN DISBELIEVED. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE WAS THAT STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS WERE RELIE D ON BY THE LOWER ITA NO.1679 /2018 :- 3 -: AUTHORITIES FOR DISBELIEVING THE TRANSACTIONS AND C OMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT PRICES OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD WERE J ACKED UP ARTIFICIALLY AND ASSESSEE HAD MADE CLAIM A BOGUS CLAIM OF LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAINS. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THESE STATEMENTS, NOR THE REPORTS OF THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT WERE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD.AR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RELIED ON AN INTERIM REPORT OF SEBI, FOR TAKING AN ADVERSE VI EW, WHEREAS THE LATTER AUTHORITY IN ITS FINAL REPORT HAD EXONERATED THESE ACCUSED OF MANIPULATING THE VALUE OF THE SHARES IN M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND VS. ITO, PRAVEEN CHAND VS. ITO, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) VS. ITO AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI VS. ITO (ITA NOS.2003/17, 1 721/2017, 2293/17 AND 2748/2017 DATED 06.04.2018), LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN SIMILAR CASES WHE RE THERE WAS A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD, THE TRIBUNAL HAD GIVEN DI RECTIONS TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERING THE ISSUE AD HERING TO THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGL Y SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBM ITTED THAT THERE WERE SUFFICIENT AND MORE REASONS FOR LOWER AUTHORITIES TO DISBELIEVE THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH ITA NO.1679 /2018 :- 4 -: AUTO FINANCE LTD. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW HE INDEN TIFIED THE SHARES OF M/S. CAREFUL PROJECTS ADVISORY SERVICES LTD, FOR MA KING AN OFF MARKET PURCHASE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PLA CED RELIANCE ON A DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI HEERACHAND KANUNGA VS. ITO (ITA NOS.2786 & 2787/CHNY/2017, DATD 03.05.2018). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EXEMPT U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH A UTO FINANCE LTD. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY A CQUIRED THE SHARES OF ONE OF M/S. CAREFUL PROJECTS ADVISORY SERVICES LTD, WHICH WAS LATER MERGED WITH M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. IN SIMIL AR CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND, PRAVEEN CHAND, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI (SUPRA) WHERE ALSO ASSESSEES HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT ON SALE OF SHARES O F M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS UNDER AT P ARA 13 TO 16 OF ITS ORDER DATED 6.04.2018. 13. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) HAD RELIED ON SEBI ORDER DATED 29.03.2 016, IN THE CASE OF M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD.. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE ABOVE ORDER, THERE IS A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF MODUS OPERAN DI ADOPTED BY ABOUT ELEVEN NUMBERS OF COMPANIES, INTER ALIA INCLU DING M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. IT ALSO MENTIONS HOW M/S.KAILASH ITA NO.1679 /2018 :- 5 -: AUTO FINANCE LTD., HAD BUILT UP A HUGE SHARE PREMIU M WITHIN A SHORT TIME OF ITS INCORPORATION. SEBI HAD ALSO ANA LYSED THE FINANCIALS OF M/S.CPAN AND M/S.PML, WHICH WERE MERG ED WITH M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD.,AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS DISPROPORTIONATE ISSUE OF BONUS SHARES BY THESE TWO COMPANIES. APART FROM THE SEBI REPORT, LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD A LSO RELIED ON A STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM MR.SUNIL DOKANIA ON 12.06. 2015 AND THE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. WHA T I CAN DISCERN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY MR.SUNIL DOKANIA, NOR THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THESE WENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AN O PPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN SUCH STATEMENT AND IF NECESSARY, AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE MR.SUNIL DOKANIA. I ALSO FIND THAT THE AO HAD NOT ENQUIRED HOW THE ASSESSEE HAD BECOME AWA RE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S.PANCHSHUL MARKETING LTD., WHEN THE SAID COMPANY WAS NOT LISTED AND ENTITLED. THE FINDING OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FINANCIALS OF M /S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH FOR JUSTIFYING THE HIGH VALUE OF ITS SHARE IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICIENT EM PIRICAL DATA. 14.NOW, COMING TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD.A.R THAT A SSESSMENT HAVING BEEN DONE PURSUANT TO A SEARCH, OUGHT HAVE BEEN U/S.153A TO 153D OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S.143(3), I A M AFRAID I CANNOT TOE THIS LINE OF REASONING. RELEVANT PARA I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELIED BY THE LD.A.R, FOR BUTTRESSING THIS AR GUMENT REPRODUCED AT PARA ELEVEN ABOVE, HARDLY SUGGEST THA T THE ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUANT TO A SEARCH. JUST BECAUSE AN INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY THE INVESTIGAT ION DEPARTMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT, BASED ON SOME LEADS THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD, REPORTS OF WHICH WERE USED AGAINST THE AS SESSEE, WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS PURSUA NT TO ANY SEARCH. THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER ON RECORD TO S UGGEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS BASED ON MATERIALS UNEARTHED DU RING A SEARCH. 15. HOWEVER, AS ALREADY MENTIONED BY ME, RULES OF J USTICE DO REQUIRE THAT THE REPORTS OF INVESTIGATION WING, REL IED ON BYTHE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, AS WELL AS THE STATEMENT RECORDE D FROM MR.SUNIL DOKANIA ARE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE AND ITS EXPLANATION SOUGHT, BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER THESE ARE RELEVANT IN THE A SSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. I ALSO FIND THE SEBI THROUGH ITS ORDE R DATED 21.09.2017(SUPRA) DID VACATE ITS INTERIM EXPARTE OR DER DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2016 RESTRAINING 244 ENTITIES, INTER ALIA IN CLUDING M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., FROM BUYING, SELLING OR DEALING IN SECURITIES. ITA NO.1679 /2018 :- 6 -: 16. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I A M OF THE OPINION THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS GIVING RISE TO THE LONG TERM CAPITAL G AINS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT, WERE REAL OR SHAM, REQUI RES A RE-VISIT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH . 5. IN THE CASE OF HEERACHAND KANUNGA (SUPRA ) RELIED ON BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAD HELD AS UNDER:- 9.A PERUSAL OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ADMITT EDLY GIVEN ROOM FOR SUSPICION. HOWEVER, ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT TO BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION. IT HAS T O BE SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND THE FACTS ARE UNFORTUNATELY NOT FORTHCOMING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IN THE ORDER O F THE LD.CIT(A) NOR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE M AIN FOUNDATION OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN WHO HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE PROVIDED BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL G AINS TO HIS CLIENTS. THE SAID SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN AL SO ALLEGEDLY SEEMS TO HAVE PROVIDED THE ASSESSEES NAM E AND PAN AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES. HOWEVER, THIS STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANNOT BE THE FOUNDATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT IN SO FAR AS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE STATEMENT REM AINS MERE INFORMATION AND SUCH INFORMATION CANNOT BE FOUNDATION FOR ASSESSMENT. 10.ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED 15000 SHARES FROM M/S.BPL @ RS.20/- PER SHARE TOTALING INTO RS.3,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLA IMS TO HAVE PAID CASH FOR THE PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES. T HE PRIMARY QUESTION WOULD BE AS TO WHERE THE PURCHASE WAS DONE? IF THE PURCHASE HAS BEEN DONE IN KOLKATA, HOW WAS THE CASH TRANSFERRED? WHEN DID THE ASSESSEE RECEIVE D THE SHARE CERTIFICATES AND THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS? H OW DID THE ASSESSEE OVERCOME THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3)? WAS THERE ADEQUATE CASH AVAILABILITY IN THE BOOKS O F THE ASSESSEE ON 24.04.2008? DID THE ASSESSEE TRAVELLED TO KOLKATA? HOW WAS THE TRANSACTION DONE? WHO APPLIE D FOR ITA NO.1679 /2018 :- 7 -: THE DEMATING OF THE SHARES? WHEN WERE THEY DEMATED ? WHEN WERE THE SHARES TRANSFERRED TO THE DEMAT ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE? TO WHOM WERE THE SHARES SOLD DURING T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12? WHEN WERE THE CHEQUES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE? FROM WHOM DID TH E ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CHEQUES? WAS THERE ANY CASH DEPOSIT IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ISSUING OF THE CHE QUE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASER OF THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE? 11.A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA NO.7.1 SHOWS THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT HE HAS PURCHASED 15000 SHARES OF M/S.BP L FROM M/S.ABPL, KOLKATA. HOWEVER, IN PARA NO.8.3, I T IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN GOOD FAITH HAS PURCH ASED THE SHARES OF M/S.BPL FROM A SUB-BROKER IN HIS FRIE NDS CIRCLE. WHAT IS THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION ? FROM WHOM DID THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY PURCHASE THE SHARES? DID THE ASSESSEE TAKE POSSESSION OF THE SHARES IN ITS P HYSICAL FORM? IN PARA NO.8.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT I S MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTOR AND HAS BEEN REGULARLY TRADING IN SHARES. IF THIS IS SO, DOES T HE DEMAT ACCOUNT SHOW SUCH TRANSACTIONS BEING DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OR IS THIS THE ONLY ONE OF TRANSACTION. T HUS, CLEARLY THE FACTS REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATING THE APP EALS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER T O SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS. THIS IS BECAUSE ASSUMING THAT THE DEMAT HA S BEEN DONE AND THE SHARES OF M/S.BPL HAS COME INTO T HE ASSESSEES DEMAT ACCOUNT AND HAS IMMEDIATELY FLOWN OUT. THEN THE FACTUM OF THE POSSESSION OF THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS HAVE TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO NOT FORTHCOMING. IN REPLY TO A SPECIFIC QU ERY, AS THE DATE OF THE DEMAT OF SHARES, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E LD.AR THAT THE DEMAT WAS DONE ON VARIOUS DATES. THEN THE QUESTION RISES AS TO WHY THERE IS SO MUCH OF DIFFER ENCE IN THE DATES OF DEMATING WHEN 15000 SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED TOGETHER ON 24.04.2008. NO DETAILS IN RE SPECT OF M/S.BPL COMPANY IS KNOWN, WHAT IS THE PRODUCT OF THE COMPANY WHICH HAD LEAD TO THE SHARE VALUE OF THE COMPANY TO GO UP FROM RS.20/- TO RS.352/- IN A PERI OD OF TWO YEARS. THIS WOULD CLEARLY BE A CASE WHERE THE S HARE VALUE OF THE COMPANY WAS HITTING THE CIRCUIT BREAKE R OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE ON A DAILY BASIS AND OBVIOUSLY IT WO ULD HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION. THIS BEING SO, AS THE FACTS ARE NOT COMING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO.1679 /2018 :- 8 -: LD.CIT(A) NOR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL MUST BE RESTORE D TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING T HE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS C ASE AND WE DO SO. 12.THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE REVENUE FROM SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANNOT BE USED AS AN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN SO FAR AS THE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE NOR HAS SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS- EXAMINATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PROVE THE TRANSACTION OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPE CT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION U/S.10 (38) BY PROVIDING ALL SUCH EVIDENCES AS REQUIRED BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AS ALSO BY PRODUCING THE PER SONS THROUGH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN THE TRANSACTION OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE SUB-BROKER, FRIEND AND THE BROKER THROUGH WHOM THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN DONE, BEFORE THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. 6. THE FACT SITUATION HERE, IS SIMILAR TO THE ABOVE TW O CASES DECIDED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHETHER R EAL OR SHAM, REQUIRES A REVISIT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILAR DIR ECTIONS AS GIVEN IN THE CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND, PRAVEEN CHAND, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI (SUPRA), READ A LONGWITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF HEERACHAND KANUNGA (SUPRA) ARE GIVEN HEREALSO. USEFUL REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE LAW L AID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNITA DHADDA, SLP (CIVIL) NO.9432/2018, DATED 28.03.2018 , WHILE AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.SMT. SUNITA DHADDA , WHERE ITA NO.1679 /2018 :- 9 -: THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS HAS BEEN STRESSED. THEIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT THIS W AS AN IMPORTANT CONSTITUENT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ONLY AFTER ALL TH E STEPS REQUIRED UNDER LAW IS COMPLETE, IT CAN BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER CLAIM OF CAPITAL GAINS WAS BOGUS OR NOT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 8 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . !'!# ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) $ %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - ' / CHENNAI . / DATED: 8 TH NOVEMBER, 2018. KV / ' $(0 1 2 1 ( / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. & 3( ( ) / CIT(A) 5. 167 $(8 / DR 2. $%! / RESPONDENT 4. & 3( / CIT 6. 79 :' / GF