DCIT, New Delhi V. Shri Arun Kumar Jain, New Delhi

ITA 1681/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8664 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2009
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M BHASKAR GOSWAMI
• Assessee Lawyers: H P AGGARWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA : VICE PRESIDENT; A ND SRHI D.R. SINGH : JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1681/DEL/09 ASSTT. YRS: 2006-07 DCIT CIRCLE 39(1), VS. ARUN KUMAR JAIN, NEW DELHI. 4415/14, GALI LOTAN JAT, PAHARI DHIRAJ, SADAR BAZAR, DELHI. PAN/GIR NO. AEDPJ3511L ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. BHASKAR GOSWAMI, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H.P. AGGARWAL CA O R D E R PER G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, V.P: THIS APPEAL, BY THE REVENUE , ARISES OUT OF THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)- XXVIII, NEW DELHI DATED 26-2-2009, RELATING TO A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. WHETHER ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 14,82,291/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN THE ABSENCE O F CONTRACT NOTES IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN AS TO WHETHER THE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF THESE PERSONS HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OR NOT . 2. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS WHILE DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,82,291/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE STT (SERVICE TRANSACTION TAX) CERTIFICATE ENCLOSED AS PROFORMA NO. 10DB IS IN ONE NAME AND THE TRANSACTIO NS WERE DIVERTED IN THE OTHER PERSONS NAME. 2 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS WHILE DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,82,291/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT USED UNIQUE CLIENT CODE FOR HIS CL IENTS WHICH IS MANDATORY FOR ALL BROKERS OR SUB-BROKERS A S PER SEBI REGULATION, 1992. 3. IDENTICAL GROUNDS WERE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 2829/DEL/08 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 WHEREIN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH A VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19-6-2009 HAS HELD THAT PA RTIES WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD BUSINESS DEALINGS HAD CONFIRMED THE T RANSACTIONS IN THE COURSE OF INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND I T COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE THIRD PARTY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAME, THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IS ALSO CONFIRMED. 4. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON ______________. (D.R. SINGH ) ( G.E. VEERABHADRAP PA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: _______-07-2009. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 3