Beek Chand Chandak, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 11(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2261/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4342 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.2261/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-2015. BEEKH CHAND CHANDAK, NO.70/86, GODOWN STREET, 3 RD FLOOR, CHENNAI 600 001. [PAN AEMPC 1215M] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 11(1) CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. K. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, ITP /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 13 - 02 - 2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 - 0 2 - 201 9 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH I S DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 01.06.2018 OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, CHENNAI, IT IS AGGRIEVED ON DENIAL OF EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.11,30,368/- ARISING ON SAL E OF SHARES CLAIMED U/S.10(38) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND TREATING THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.11,83 ,700/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. ITA NO.2261/CHNY/18 :- 2 -: 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAD SOLD 3,800 SHARES OF ONE M/S. UNNO INDUSTRIES LIMIT ED FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 11,83,700/- AND CLAIMED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.11,30,368/- ARISING FROM SUCH SALE, AS EXEMPT 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. UNNO INDUSTRIES LIMITED WAS A PENNY STOCK CO MPANY. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD PUR CHASED THESE SHARES ON 31.12.2013 FOR 50,000/. CONTENTION OF T HE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES W ERE GENUINE THOUGH, IT WAS DONE OFF MARKET. THE SALE OF THESE SHARES, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, WAS MADE THROUGH REC OGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE AND OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. CON TENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT STATEMENTS RECOR DED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS WERE RELIED ON BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR DISBELIEVING THE TRANSACTIONS AND COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT PRICE S OF M/S. UNNO INDUSTRIES LIMITED WERE JACKED UP ARTIFICIALLY AND ASSESSEE HAD MADE CLAIM A BOGUS CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THESE STATEMENTS, NOR THE REPORTS OF THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT WERE PUT TO T HE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE LD. ASSESSING ITA NO.2261/CHNY/18 :- 3 -: OFFICER HAD RELIED ON AN INTERIM REPORT OF SEBI, FO R TAKING AN ADVERSE VIEW, WHEREAS THE LATTER IN ITS FINAL REPORT HAD NO T FOUND ANY ARTIFICIAL OR MAKE BELIEVE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO M/S. UNNO INDUSTRIES LIMITED. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND VS. ITO, PRAVEEN CHAND VS. IT O, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) VS. ITO AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI VS. ITO (ITA NOS.2003/17, 1721/2017, 2293/17 AND 2748/2017 DATED 06.04.2018), LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN SI MILAR CASES WHERE THERE WAS A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITA L GAINS ON SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. UNNO INDUSTRIES LIMITED, THE TRIBUNAL HAD GIVEN DIRECTIONS TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSI DERING THE ISSUE ADHERING 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 AUTHOR ITIES TO DISBELIEVE THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EQU ITY SHARES OF M/S. UNNO INDUSTRIES LIMITED. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW HE INDENTIFIED THE SHARES OF THE SAID COMPANY FOR MAKING AN OFF MARKET PURCHASE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PLACED RELIAN CE ON A DECISION OF ITA NO.2261/CHNY/18 :- 4 -: 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. UNNO I NDUSTRIES LIMITED. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INITI ALLY ACQUIRED THE SHARES OF THE SAID COMPANY THROUGH OFF MARKET DEALS . IN SIMILAR 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 PURCHASED OFF-MARKET, 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 OPERANDI ADOPTED BY ABOUT ELEVEN NUMBERS OF COMPANIES, INTER ALIA INCLUDING M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. IT ALSO MEN TIONS HOW M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., HAD BUILT UP A HUGE SHARE PREMIUM WITHIN A SHORT TIME OF ITS INCORPORATION. SEBI HAD ALSO ANALYSED THE FINANCIALS OF M/S.CPAN AND M/S.PML, WH ICH WERE MERGED 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 AUTHOR ITIES HAD ALSO RELIED ON A STATEMENT OBTAINED FROM MR.SUNIL D OKANIA ON 12.06.2015 AND THE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. WHAT I CAN DISCERN FROM THE ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY MR.SUNIL DOKANIA, NOR ITA NO.2261/CHNY/18 :- 5 -: THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING RELIED ON BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THESE WENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT ASS ESSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN SUC H STATEMENT AND IF NECESSARY, AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMI NE MR.SUNIL DOKANIA. I ALSO FIND THAT THE AO HAD NOT ENQUIRED HOW THE ASSESSEE HAD BECOME AWARE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF TH E EQUITY SHARES OF M/S.PANCHSHUL MARKETING LTD., WHEN THE SA ID COMPANY WAS NOT LISTED AND ENTITLED. THE FINDING OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FINANCIALS OF M/S.KAILA SH AUTO FINANCE LTD., WERE NOT STRONG ENOUGH FOR JUSTIFYING THE HIGH VALUE OF ITS SHARE IS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED BY SUFFICI ENT EMPIRICAL 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 BUTTRESS ING THIS ARGUMENT REPRODUCED AT PARA ELEVEN ABOVE, HARDLY SU GGEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE ASSESSEE WAS PURSUANT T O A SEARCH. JUST BECAUSE AN INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY T HE INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT, BASED ON SOME LEADS THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD, REPORTS OF WHICH WERE US ED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO MEAN THAT THE AS SESSMENT WAS PURSUANT TO ANY SEARCH. THERE IS NOTHING WHATS OEVER ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS BASED ON MATERIALS UNEARTHED DURING 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 REC ORDED FROM MR.SUNIL DOKANIA ARE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE AND ITS EX PLANATION SOUGHT, BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER THESE ARE RELEVANT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. I ALSO FIND THE SEBI T HROUGH ITS ORDER DATED 21.09.2017(SUPRA) DID VACATE ITS INTERI M EXPARTE ORDER DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2016 RESTRAINING 244 ENTITIES, INTER ALIA INCLUDING M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., FROM BUYIN G, SELLING OR DEALING IN SECURITIES. 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 CAPIT AL GAINS EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT, WERE REAL OR SHAM, REQUIRES A RE-VISIT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ITA NO.2261/CHNY/18 :- 6 -: 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 TO B E 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 STA TEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANNOT BE THE FOUND ATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT IN SO FAR AS SHRI ASH OK KUMAR KAYAN HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE F OR CROSS-EXAMINATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY O F CROSS- EXAMINATION, THE STATEMENT REMAINS MERE INFORMATION AND SUCH INFORMATION CANNOT BE FOUNDATION FOR ASSESSMEN T. 10.ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PUR CHASED 15000 SHARES FROM M/S.BPL @ RS.20/- PER SHARE TOTAL ING INTO RS.3,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE PAI D CASH FOR THE PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES. THE PRIMARY QUES TION 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 RECEIVED THE SHA RE CERTIFICATES AND THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS? HOW DID THE ASSESSEE OVERCOME THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3)? WA S THERE ADEQUATE CASH AVAILABILITY IN THE BOOKS OF TH E ASSESSEE ON 24.04.2008? DID THE ASSESSEE TRAVELLED TO KOLKATA? HOW WAS THE TRANSACTION DONE? WHO APPLIE D FOR 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 ITA NO.2261/CHNY/18 :- 7 -: 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.BPL FROM M/S.ABPL, KOLKATA. HOWEVER, IN PARA NO.8.3, IT 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 QUERY , 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 TH E COMPANY WHICH HAD LEAD TO THE SHARE VALUE OF THE CO MPANY TO GO UP FROM RS.20/- TO RS.352/- IN A PERIOD OF TW O YEARS. THIS WOULD CLEARLY BE A CASE WHERE THE SHARE VALUE OF THE COMPANY WAS HITTING THE CIRCUIT BREAKER OF THE STOC K EXCHANGE ON A DAILY BASIS AND OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD HA VE DRAWN ATTENTION. THIS BEING SO, AS THE FACTS ARE N OT COMING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR THE ORDER OF THE LD .CIT(A) NOR FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF THE ITA NO.2261/CHNY/18 :- 8 -: AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE 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 TRANSA CTION 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 EXAMIN ATION. 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 WHET HER REAL OR SHAM, REQUIRES A REVISIT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. SI MILAR DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN IN THE CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND, PRAVEEN CHAND, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI (SU PRA), READ ALONGWITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF HEERA CHAND KANUNGA (SUPRA) ARE GIVEN HEREALSO. USEFUL REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE 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 AFFIRMING A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS.SMT. SUNITA DHADDA , WHERE THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS HAS BEEN STRESSED. THEIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT ITA NO.2261/CHNY/18 :- 9 -: THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT CONSTITUENT OF NATURAL JUSTI CE. ONLY AFTER ALL THE STEPS REQUIRED UNDER LAW IS COMPLETE, IT CAN BE AS CERTAINED WHETHER CLAIM OF CAPITAL GAINS WAS BOGUS OR NOT. WE THEREFO RE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSU E BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED ON 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/ - (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2019 KV / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 5. / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. / CIT 6. / GF