DARSHAK MAHESH RUPANI, MUMBAI V. ITO WARD 27(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2267/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Darshak Mahesh Rupani, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of Rs 15,39,088 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was based on the alleged sale proceeds of traded scrips, which the Assessing Officer deemed suspicious. The appellant contested the addition, arguing that it was based on conjectures and lacked independent evidence. The Tribunal considered the additional evidences submitted by the appellant, which were not presented at the lower levels, and decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough examination of these new documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123809 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2267/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2014-15) Darshak Mahesh Rupani 1101 Neelkant Tower, 206 Goradia Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai- 400077 PAN: AGTPR6549L v. Income Tax Officer- 27(1)-4 Tower No. 6 Vashi Railway Station Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri. Satish Gupta & Ms. Shivani Bajpai Department Represented by : Shri. Saurabh Kumar Date of Hearing : 09.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 03.04.2023 PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 21.07.2022 for the A.Y.2014-15. 2 ITA NO.2267/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2014-15) Darshak Mahesh Rupani 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2014-15 on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of ₹.5,06,290/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) were issued and served on the assessee. In response Authorised Representative of the assessee attended and submitted the relevant information as called for. 3. During the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer observed that assessee has earned long term capital gain of ₹.5,07,408/- as exempt u/s.10(38) of the Act and he observed that assessee has dealt with the scrip Global Capital Market Limited and the details of the transactions are given below: Date of purchase Qty Value Date of sale Qty. Sales LTCG 31.3.11 100000 7,52,295 30.08.2013 100000 12,02,140 4,49,845 31.3.11 21500 2,79,385 31.03.2014 21500 3,36,948 57,563 5,07,408 4. Assessing Officer observed in his order the selection of the case for scrutiny is based on the suspicious long term capital gain and assessee has purchased 4,17,000 shares at ₹.32,54,716/- and Assessing Officer 3 ITA NO.2267/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2014-15) Darshak Mahesh Rupani discussed the suspicious character of the scrip in his Assessment Order and made the addition of ₹.15,39,088/- u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), after considering the detailed submissions Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us, raising following grounds in its appeal: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law the CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO in making an addition of Rs 15,39,088/- u/s 68 of the Act being the alleged sale proceeds of traded scrips Global Capital Market by disallowing legitimate LTCG earned, without any independent evidence to fasten the allegations of the AO and exclusively relying on the investigation report. Thus the addition must be deleted. 2. The CIT(A) erred in concurring with the action of the AO in making the addition without independent application of mind and examination of the material/ made submissions during the assessment proceedings and also failed to appreciate the assessee's latest submissions dated 13.08.2022 which highlighted mistaken premise by AO, giving BSE's traded data of Global Capital Market Securities Ltd., scrip no- 535431, whereas, the assessee had shares of Global Capital Market Ltd., scrip no- 530263, and elected to conclude assessee's transaction as ingenuine. Thus, addition made on conjectures and surmises must to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, alter or delete all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.” 4 ITA NO.2267/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2014-15) Darshak Mahesh Rupani 7. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted additional evidences before us, which was not submitted before the lower authorities and he prayed that these additional evidences contain the complete list of date-wise transaction of purchase / sale of scrip under consideration, D- MAT account, BSE Trade data sheets etc., and he prayed that these additional evidences may be admitted and prayed that this may be remitted back to the Assessing Officer for proper appreciation of the facts. 8. On the other hand, Ld.DR, however, objected for admission of additional evidences at this stage, however, he has no objection to remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification. 9. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that assessee has filed detailed paper book which was submitted before lower authorities and also filed before us additional evidences with regard to the issue under consideration. Since the additional evidences goes to the route of the transactions, we deem it fit and proper to remit this issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of the same and we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the additional evidences submitted by the assessee as per law after giving adequate 5 ITA NO.2267/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2014-15) Darshak Mahesh Rupani opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 03 rd April, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 03/04/2023 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum