Ravi Jalan, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 2292/KOL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8681 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 250; 48; 2(A)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA C BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO. 2292/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI RAVI JALAN...........................................APPELLANT 4, B.B.D. BAG EAST 1 ST FLOOR ROOM NO. 5A KOLKATA 700 001 [PAN : ACXPJ 1738 M] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 36(1), KOLKATA........................................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL A/R & SHRI SIDDHARTH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. MR. ALTAF HUSSAIN, JCIT D/R, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 11 TH , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JANUARY 15 TH , 2019 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 10, KOLKATA, (HEREINAFTER THE LD.CIT(A)), PASSED U/S. 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), DT. 08/09/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN STOCK, UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. RAVI JALAN, SOLE PROPRIETOR CONCERN. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 04/09/2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,82,060/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 20/03/2015 AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,39,68,151/- INTERALIA, DENYING THE BENEFIT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 47 (XIV) OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. RAVI JALAN TO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, M/S. J.S. TRADEX PVT. LTD. CONSEQUENT TO THE DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT U/S 47(XIV), THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALTERNATIVELY COMPUTING THE INCOME IN QUESTION UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT. A SUM OF RS.1,24,54,080/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT R.W.R. 8D. AN ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSION OF CLOSING STOCK BEING GOLD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL RENT. 2.1. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE GRANTED PART RELIEF ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF NOTIONAL RENT. 3. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SUBASH AGARW GROUNDS EXCEPT GROUND NO. 2(A), GROUND NO. 3 AND GROUND NO. 4, ARE NOT PRESSED. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE GROUND NOS. 1, 2(B), AS NOT PRESSED 5. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL ALTAF HUSS AIN, JCIT, LD. SR. D/R ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 6. GROUND NO. 2(A) READS (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND CHARGING TO TAX BY WAY OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE WHATEVER NAME MAY CALL ON A SUM OF RS 6.1. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A BUSINESS OF TRADING IN GOLD UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. RAVI JALAN. THIS BUSINESS WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, M/S. J.S. TRADEX PVT. LTD., BY WAY OF AN AGREEMENT DT. 27/ ASSESSEES LIABILITIES SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE (A) AND SCHEDULE (B) TO THE AGREEMENT DT. 27/03/2012, BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE COMPANY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,70,69,200/ A) BY WAY OF ISSUE OF 3 LAC EQUITY SHARES @ RS.10/ B) BALANCE BY OTHER MODES (CHEQUES): THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER UNDER THE ACT, IN VIEW SECTION 47(XIV) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF TAX AS CAPITAL GAINS. 2 AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE GRANTED PART RELIEF ONLY ON THE ISSUE OF NOTIONAL RENT. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SUBASH AGARW AL, SUBMITTED THAT, ALL THE GROUNDS EXCEPT GROUND NO. 2(A), GROUND NO. 3 AND GROUND NO. 4, ARE NOT PRESSED. GROUND NOS. 1, 2(B), AS NOT PRESSED . WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AIN, JCIT, LD. SR. D/R ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - GROUND NO. 2(A) READS AS FOLLOWS:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND CHARGING TO TAX BY WAY OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE WHATEVER NAME MAY CALL ON A SUM OF RS .1,24,54,080/ THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A BUSINESS OF TRADING IN GOLD UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. RAVI JALAN. THIS BUSINESS WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, M/S. J.S. TRADEX PVT. LTD., BY WAY OF AN AGREEMENT DT. 27/ ASSESSEES LIABILITIES SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE (A) AND SCHEDULE (B) TO THE AGREEMENT DT. 27/03/2012, BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE COMPANY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,70,69,200/ - . THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID AS UNDER: WAY OF ISSUE OF 3 LAC EQUITY SHARES @ RS.10/ - AMOUNTING TO: BALANCE BY OTHER MODES (CHEQUES): THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER UNDER THE ACT, IN VIEW SECTION 47(XIV) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF TAX AS ITA NO. 2292/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. RAVI JALAN AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE LD . FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE GRANTED PART RELIEF AL, SUBMITTED THAT, ALL THE GROUNDS EXCEPT GROUND NO. 2(A), GROUND NO. 3 AND GROUND NO. 4, ARE NOT PRESSED. , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND MR. AIN, JCIT, LD. SR. D/R ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND CHARGING TO TAX BY WAY OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR .1,24,54,080/ -. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A BUSINESS OF TRADING IN GOLD UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. RAVI JALAN. THIS BUSINESS WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, M/S. J.S. TRADEX PVT. LTD., BY WAY OF AN AGREEMENT DT. 27/ 03/2012. ALL THE ASSESSEES LIABILITIES SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE (A) AND SCHEDULE (B) TO THE AGREEMENT DT. 27/03/2012, BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE COMPANY FOR A . THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID AS UNDER: - AMOUNTING TO: RS.30,00,000/- RS.2,40,69,200/- RS.2,70,69,200/- THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER UNDER THE ACT, IN VIEW OF SECTION 47(XIV) OF THE ACT AND HENCE THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF TAX AS 6.1.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THREE MANDATORY CONDITIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED, FOR A TRANSACTION THESE ARE:- (A) ALL THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE SOLE PROPRIETARY CONCERN RELATING TO THE BUSINESS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SUCCESSION BECOME THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE COMPANY; (B) THE SHAREHOLDING OF THE SOLE THE TOTAL VOTING POWER IN THE COMPANY AND HIS SHAREHOLDING CONTINUES TO REMAIN AS SUCH FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUCCESSION; AND (C) THE SOLE PROPRIETOR DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY IN ANY FORM OR MANNER, OTHER THAN BY WAY OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES IN THE COMPANY; 6.2. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED OFFICER HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION WOULD WITHIN THE KEN OF SECTION 47(XIV) OF THE ACT AND THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. HE HELD THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE TRANSACTION ATTRACTS SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C GAINS AT RS.1,24,54,080/- AND WHILE DOING SO, THE CONSIDERATION WAS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- (A) FMV OF SHARES OF M/S. J.S. TRADEX (P) LTD. AS PER RULE 11UA(1)(C)(B) RS.51.51. X 3 LAC SHARES: (THE VALUE COMES TO RS.1,54,53,000) (A) AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH AS PER AGREEMENT DT. 27.03.12: 6.3. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF EACH SHARE AS ON 31/03/2012 WAS FIXED AT RS.51.51./- UNDER RULE 11UA(1)(C)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES), INSTEAD OF FACE VALUE OF RS. 10/- PER SHARE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO MENTIONS, WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON THAT, THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS ALSO ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLE TO THE BENEFIT U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT FOR THE DETAILED REA SONINGS GIVEN AT PAGE 15 TO 18 OF HIS ORDER. ON THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 9 PAGE 18 OF HIS ORDER HELD AS FOLLOWS: 3 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THREE MANDATORY CONDITIONS WERE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED, FOR A TRANSACTION , NOT TO BE CONSIDERED AS A TRA NSFER U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT. ALL THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE SOLE PROPRIETARY CONCERN RELATING TO THE BUSINESS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SUCCESSION BECOME THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE COMPANY; THE SHAREHOLDING OF THE SOLE PROPRIETOR IN THE COMPANY IS NOT LESS THAN FIFTY PER CENT OF THE TOTAL VOTING POWER IN THE COMPANY AND HIS SHAREHOLDING CONTINUES TO REMAIN AS SUCH FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE SUCCESSION; AND (C) THE SOLE PROPRIETOR DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY CONSIDERATION OR BENEFIT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER, OTHER THAN BY WAY OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES IN THE COMPANY; AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE THIRD MANDATORY CONDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION WOULD BE CONSIDERED A TRANSFER, AS IT WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE KEN OF SECTION 47(XIV) OF THE ACT AND THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. HE HELD THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE TRANSACTION ATTRACTS SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C ) OF THE ACT. HE COMPUTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL AND WHILE DOING SO, THE CONSIDERATION WAS COMPUTED AS FMV OF SHARES OF M/S. J.S. TRADEX (P) LTD. AS PER RULE 11UA(1)(C)(B) RS.51.51. X 3 LAC SHARES: RS.1,54,54,080/ (THE VALUE COMES TO RS.1,54,53,000) AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH AS PER AGREEMENT DT. 27.03.12: RS.2,40,69,200/ RS. 3,95,23,280/ THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF EACH SHARE AS ON 31/03/2012 WAS FIXED AT UNDER RULE 11UA(1)(C)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES), INSTEAD OF PER SHARE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO MENTIONS, WITHOUT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS ALSO ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLE TO THE BENEFIT U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT FOR THE DETAILED SONINGS GIVEN AT PAGE 15 TO 18 OF HIS ORDER. ON THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 9 PAGE 18 OF HIS ORDER HELD AS FOLLOWS: - ITA NO. 2292/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. RAVI JALAN THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THREE MANDATORY CONDITIONS WERE REQUIRED NSFER U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT. ALL THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE SOLE PROPRIETARY CONCERN RELATING TO THE BUSINESS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SUCCESSION BECOME THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF THE COMPANY; PROPRIETOR IN THE COMPANY IS NOT LESS THAN FIFTY PER CENT OF THE TOTAL VOTING POWER IN THE COMPANY AND HIS SHAREHOLDING CONTINUES TO REMAIN AS SUCH CONSIDERATION OR BENEFIT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER, OTHER THAN BY WAY OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES IN THE COMPANY; MANDATORY CONDITION, THE ASSESSING AS IT WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE KEN OF SECTION 47(XIV) OF THE ACT AND THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. HE HELD THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE ) OF THE ACT. HE COMPUTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL AND WHILE DOING SO, THE CONSIDERATION WAS COMPUTED AS RS.1,54,54,080/ - RS.2,40,69,200/ - RS. 3,95,23,280/ - THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF EACH SHARE AS ON 31/03/2012 WAS FIXED AT UNDER RULE 11UA(1)(C)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (RULES), INSTEAD OF PER SHARE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO MENTIONS, WITHOUT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IS ALSO ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLE TO THE BENEFIT U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT FOR THE DETAILED SONINGS GIVEN AT PAGE 15 TO 18 OF HIS ORDER. ON THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL 9. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISPUTED OR RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE COMPU LD. AO. I AM ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPUTATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ONLY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE LD. AO OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE COST OF INTANGI BLE ASSET I.E. THE APPELLANT'S GOODWILL AS WELL. UNDENIABLY GOODWILL IS A CAPITAL ASSET; HOWEVER I FIND THAT NO COST WHATSOEVER WAS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD INSTEAD IT WAS A SELF EVEN THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE GOODWILL OR WHETHER THE GOODWILL WAS PURCHASED EARLIER FROM OUTSIDE. SECTION 55 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 PROVIDES THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH SELF GENERATED ASSETS, PARTICULARLY GOODWILL HAS TO BE TAKEN AT NIL. IN VI FOREGOING THEREFORE AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55(2), THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REFERENCE TO THE AO'S WORKING OF COST OF ACQUISITION IS FOUND TO BE UNJUSTIFIED. I FIND THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AT RS.2,70,69,200/-. ACCORDINGLY THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX WORKED OUT BY THE AO AT RS.1,24,54,080/ LAW. 6.4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE CLAIM OF BENEFIT U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE OF DENIAL OF BENEFIT U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT, IS A TRANSFER AND IN EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS 6.5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DISPUTE GAINS AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT. HE ARGUES THAT BOTH THE SECTIONS CANNOT BE CLUBBED AND THE COMPUTATION METHODOLOGY HAS NO SANCTION OF LAW ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT SPECIFIED THE PROVISION OF LAW FOLLOWED, WHILE ADOPTING THE METHODOLOGY OF ARRIVING AT THE COST OF CONSIDERATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE COMP TO BE DONE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS WHICH IS RS.2,70,69,200/ CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND IF DONE SO, THE CAPITAL GAIN WO THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE PRICE OF ASSETS THE BALANCE SHEET ON 26/03/2012. HE POINTED OUT WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON TOTAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, AS REFLECTED IN THE COMBINED BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. RAVI JALAN, PREPARED ON 26/03/2012, ONLY THOSE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES 4 IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISPUTED OR RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE COMPU TATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,95,23,280/ LD. AO. I AM ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPUTATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ONLY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE LD. AO OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED BLE ASSET I.E. THE APPELLANT'S GOODWILL AS WELL. UNDENIABLY GOODWILL IS A CAPITAL ASSET; HOWEVER I FIND THAT NO COST WHATSOEVER WAS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD INSTEAD IT WAS A SELF - GENERATED ASSET. EVEN THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO POINT OUT THE COST INCURRED GOODWILL OR WHETHER THE GOODWILL WAS PURCHASED EARLIER FROM OUTSIDE. SECTION T. ACT, 1961 PROVIDES THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH SELF GENERATED ASSETS, PARTICULARLY GOODWILL HAS TO BE TAKEN AT NIL. IN VI EW OF THE FOREGOING THEREFORE AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55(2), THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REFERENCE TO THE AO'S WORKING OF COST OF ACQUISITION IS FOUND TO BE UNJUSTIFIED. I FIND THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AT ACCORDINGLY THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX OUT BY THE AO AT RS.1,24,54,080/ - WAS CORRECT ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE 47(XIV) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE OF DENIAL OF BENEFIT U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT, IS HEREBY UPHELD. THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION IS A TRANSFER AND IN EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DISPUTE S THE COMPUTATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT. HE ARGUES THAT BOTH THE SECTIONS CANNOT BE CLUBBED AND THE COMPUTATION METHODOLOGY HAS NO SANCTION OF LAW . HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT SPECIFIED THE PROVISION OF LAW WHILE ADOPTING THE METHODOLOGY OF ARRIVING AT THE COST OF CONSIDERATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE COMP UTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS HAS TO BE DONE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS WHICH IS RS.2,70,69,200/ - , HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND IF DONE SO, THE CAPITAL GAIN WO ULD BE NIL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE PRICE OF ASSETS , AS REDUCED BY THE LIABILITIES, IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET ON 26/03/2012. HE POINTED OUT TO THE TOTAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES WHICH IS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 26/03/2012. HE SUBMITTED AS REFLECTED IN THE COMBINED BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. RAVI JALAN, PREPARED ON 26/03/2012, ONLY THOSE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES , PERTAINING TO BUSINESS OF ITA NO. 2292/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. RAVI JALAN IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISPUTED OR RAISED ANY CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,95,23,280/ - BY THE LD. AO. I AM ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMPUTATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ONLY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST OF ACQUISITION. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE LD. AO OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED BLE ASSET I.E. THE APPELLANT'S GOODWILL AS WELL. UNDENIABLY GOODWILL IS A CAPITAL ASSET; HOWEVER I FIND THAT NO COST WHATSOEVER WAS GENERATED ASSET. COST INCURRED ON GOODWILL OR WHETHER THE GOODWILL WAS PURCHASED EARLIER FROM OUTSIDE. SECTION T. ACT, 1961 PROVIDES THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH SELF - EW OF THE FOREGOING THEREFORE AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55(2), THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REFERENCE TO THE AO'S WORKING OF COST OF ACQUISITION IS FOUND TO BE UNJUSTIFIED. I FIND THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS RIGHTLY CONSIDERED AT ACCORDINGLY THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX WAS CORRECT ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE 47(XIV) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE UPHELD. THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION S THE COMPUTATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT. HE ARGUES THAT BOTH THE SECTIONS CANNOT BE CLUBBED AND THE . HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT SPECIFIED THE PROVISION OF LAW WHILE ADOPTING THE METHODOLOGY OF ARRIVING AT THE COST OF CONSIDERATION. UTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS HAS TO BE DONE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION , HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE FULL VALUE OF ULD BE NIL. HE SUBMITTED THAT REDUCED BY THE LIABILITIES, IS REFLECTED IN THE TOTAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES , SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE AS REFLECTED IN THE COMBINED BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. RAVI JALAN, PERTAINING TO BUSINESS OF TRADING IN GOLD SHOULD BE CONSIDERED HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF POLYMERS LLP VS. JCIT, ORDER DT. 27.06.2014, TAKEN-OVER AS PER THE AGREEMENT WOULD BE THE SALE PRICE AND THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ERSTWHILE ENTITY WOULD BE THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE EITHER CAPITAL GAIN OR CAPITAL LOSS. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE VALUE OF ASSETS TAKEN-OV ER BY WAY OF AGREEMENT AND THE VALUE OF THESE ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEING THE SAME, THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.6. HE ARGUED THAT SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT, HAS BEEN WRONGLY INVOKED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES PROPERTY OTHER THAN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LESS THAN THE FMV OF THESE PROPERTIES. IN SUCH CASES, ONLY THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY OVER AND ABOV E THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN VALUING SHARES OF M/S. J.S. TRADEX PVT LTD. AS ON 31/03/2012, THOUGH, THE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 27/03/20 12. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT AS PER RULE 11U(J) OF THE RULES, THE VALUATION IN QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY ON 27/03/2012. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE FMV OF SHARES ON 27/03/2012 CANNOT EXCEED THE PRICE OF RS.10/ ALLOTTED, A S THE COMPANY WAS FORMED IN THIS FINANCIAL YEAR ITSELF, I.E., ON 14/09/2011 WITH AN OBJECTIVE TO TAKE OVER AS ON 27/03/2012, THE ONLY TRANSACTIONS THAT THE COMPANY HAD WERE SHARE CAPITAL LOANS TAKEN FOR PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE EXPENSES. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT AS ON 27/03/2012. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ON 31/03/2012, 40,000 SHARES WERE ALLOTTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY @ RS.400/ BREAKUP VALUE OF INCREASING TO RS.51.51/ 31/03/2012, CANNOT BE APPLIED O QUESTION BE DELETED. 5 SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR TRANSFER UNDER THE AGREEMENT TO THE COMPANY. THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF POLYMERS LLP VS. JCIT, ORDER DT. 27.06.2014, WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT, THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS AGREEMENT WOULD BE THE SALE PRICE AND THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ERSTWHILE ENTITY WOULD BE THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE EITHER CAPITAL GAIN OR CAPITAL LOSS. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE VALUE OF ER BY WAY OF AGREEMENT AND THE VALUE OF THESE ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEING THE SAME, THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE HE ARGUED THAT SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT, HAS BEEN WRONGLY INVOKED BY THE ING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE OTHER THAN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LESS THAN THE FMV OF THESE PROPERTIES. IN SUCH CASES, ONLY THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY OVER E THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN VALUING SHARES OF M/S. J.S. TRADEX PVT LTD. AS ON 31/03/2012, THOUGH, THE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE 12. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT AS PER RULE 11U(J) OF THE RULES, THE VALUATION IN QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY ON 27/03/2012. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE FMV OF SHARES ON 27/03/2012 CANNOT EXCEED THE PRICE OF RS.10/ - PER SHARE FOR WHICH IT WAS S THE COMPANY WAS FORMED IN THIS FINANCIAL YEAR ITSELF, I.E., ON 14/09/2011 OVER THE RUNNING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT AS ON 27/03/2012, THE ONLY TRANSACTIONS THAT THE COMPANY HAD WERE SHARE CAPITAL LOANS TAKEN FOR PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE , IN ADDITION TO BANK CHARGES AND PRELIMINARY EXPENSES. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT THE VALUATION OF PER SHARE AT RS.51.51/ THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ON 31/03/2012, 40,000 SHARES WERE ALLOTTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY @ RS.400/ - PER SHARE, RESULTING THE INCREASING TO RS.51.51/ - PER SHARE AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS 31/03/2012, CANNOT BE APPLIED O N 27/03/2012. THUS, HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION IN ITA NO. 2292/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. RAVI JALAN FOR TRANSFER UNDER THE AGREEMENT TO THE COMPANY. THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. ARAVALI WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT, THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS AGREEMENT WOULD BE THE SALE PRICE AND THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ERSTWHILE ENTITY WOULD BE THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE EITHER CAPITAL GAIN OR CAPITAL LOSS. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS THE VALUE OF ER BY WAY OF AGREEMENT AND THE VALUE OF THESE ASSETS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEING THE SAME, THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE HE ARGUED THAT SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT, HAS BEEN WRONGLY INVOKED BY THE ING OFFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE OTHER THAN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LESS THAN THE FMV OF THESE PROPERTIES. IN SUCH CASES, ONLY THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY OVER E THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMITTED A GRAVE ERROR IN VALUING SHARES OF M/S. J.S. TRADEX PVT LTD. AS ON 31/03/2012, THOUGH, THE SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE 12. THUS, HE SUBMITS THAT AS PER RULE 11U(J) OF THE RULES, THE VALUATION IN QUESTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY ON 27/03/2012. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE FMV PER SHARE FOR WHICH IT WAS S THE COMPANY WAS FORMED IN THIS FINANCIAL YEAR ITSELF, I.E., ON 14/09/2011 THE RUNNING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT AS ON 27/03/2012, THE ONLY TRANSACTIONS THAT THE COMPANY HAD WERE SHARE CAPITAL LOANS IN ADDITION TO BANK CHARGES AND PRELIMINARY THE VALUATION OF PER SHARE AT RS.51.51/ -, DOES NOT ARISE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT ON 31/03/2012, 40,000 PER SHARE, RESULTING THE PER SHARE AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS VALUE AS ON 27/03/2012. THUS, HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION IN 7. ON GROUND NO. 3, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BE S ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE VALUE OF THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE YIELDED DIVIDEND INCOME BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LTD. IN GA 3022 OF 2013/ ITAT 161 OF 2013 8. ON GROUND NO. 4, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED CLOSING STOCK OF GOLD TO THE COMPANY AT PREVAILING MARKET PRICES IS WRONG. HE POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL STOCK RS.1.99 CRORES, TRANSFERRED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGES THAT THERE IS A SUPPRESSION OF RS.1,38,690/- , WHICH IS LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL VALUE. HE FURTHE NO PROVISION IN THE ACT WHICH MANDATES THAT STOCK IN TRADE HAS TO BE TRANSFE MARKET VALUE AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY APPLIED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF 9. THE LD. D/R, MR. ALTAF HUSSAIN, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED FOR BENEFIT U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT, HE SUBMITTED THAT CAPITAL GAINS HAVE TO BE DETERMINING THE FMC OF THE ASSETS U/S 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED SHARES IN CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN AS A GROWING CONCERN. HE POINTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSES DISPUTED OR RAISED ANY OBJECTION RS.3,95,29,280/- AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. 9.1. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF OTHER ISSUES, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9.2. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT ON BEHALF OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO RECORD 6 ON GROUND NO. 3, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BE S ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE VALUE OF THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE YIELDED DIVIDEND INCOME BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITAT 161 OF 2013 , JUDGMENT DT. 23/12/2013. ON GROUND NO. 4, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED CLOSING STOCK OF GOLD TO THE COMPANY AT A LOWER PRICES PREVAILING MARKET PRICES IS WRONG. HE POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL STOCK RS.1.99 CRORES, TRANSFERRED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGES THAT THERE IS A SUPPRESSION OF , WHICH IS LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL VALUE. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT WHICH MANDATES THAT STOCK IN TRADE HAS TO BE TRANSFE MARKET VALUE AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY APPLIED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ALA FIRM VS. CIT (1991) 189 ITR 285 (SC) THE LD. D/R, MR. ALTAF HUSSAIN, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED FOR BENEFIT U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT, HE SUBMITTED THAT CAPITAL GAINS HAVE TO BE DETERMINING THE FMC OF THE ASSETS U/S 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED SHARES IN CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN AS A GROWING CONCERN. HE POINTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSES DISPUTED OR RAISED ANY OBJECTION ON THE COMPUTATION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE UPHELD. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF REI AGRO LTD. (SUPRA) OTHER ISSUES, HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT ON BEHALF OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY DISPUTE OR OBJECTION ITA NO. 2292/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. RAVI JALAN ON GROUND NO. 3, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BE S ET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE VALUE OF THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE YIELDED DIVIDEND INCOME BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. REI AGRO ON GROUND NO. 4, HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ALLEGATION THAT THE LOWER PRICES THAN THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICES IS WRONG. HE POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL STOCK -IN-TRADE OF RS.1.99 CRORES, TRANSFERRED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLEGES THAT THERE IS A SUPPRESSION OF R SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT WHICH MANDATES THAT STOCK IN TRADE HAS TO BE TRANSFE RRED AT MARKET VALUE AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRONGLY APPLIED THE JUDGMENT OF THE ITR 285 (SC) . THE LD. D/R, MR. ALTAF HUSSAIN, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED FOR BENEFIT U/S 47(XIV) OF THE ACT, HE SUBMITTED THAT CAPITAL GAINS HAVE TO BE COMPUTED AFTER DETERMINING THE FMC OF THE ASSETS U/S 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED SHARES IN CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN AS A GROWING CONCERN. HE POINTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT SALE CONSIDERATION AT CORRECT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID REI AGRO LTD. (SUPRA) . FOR IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT ON BEHALF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY DISPUTE OR OBJECTION REGARDING THE COMPUTATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION. HE POINTED OUT T MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH WAS EXTRACTED AT PAGE 15 OF HIS ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DISPUTE THE COMPUTATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND HAS THIS IS NOT A NEW GROUND OF APPEAL. HE PRAYED FOR JUSTICE. 10. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: 11. THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE ASSETS/LIABILITIES THAT WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMPANY:- 7 REGARDING THE COMPUTATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION. HE POINTED OUT T O THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH WAS EXTRACTED AT PAGE 15 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DISPUTE THE COMPUTATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND HAS THIS IS NOT A NEW GROUND OF APPEAL. HE PRAYED FOR JUSTICE. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS CASE LAW CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS: - THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE ASSETS/LIABILITIES THAT WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE ITA NO. 2292/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. RAVI JALAN O THE SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH WAS EXTRACTED AT PAGE 15 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO DISPUTE THE COMPUTATION OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS ALL THE FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND HAS THIS IS NOT A NEW GROUND OF RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, PERUSAL OF THE PAPERS ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE FOLLOWING TABLE SHOWS THE ASSETS/LIABILITIES THAT WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE 11.1. THE KOLKATA C BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF (SUPRA), AT PARA 12 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 12. .. IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, NOWHERE IN THE ACT IS THERE PROVISION, MORE SO IN SECTION 45, FOR DEEMING THE SALE PRICE IN T CASE OF EQUITY SHARES. THE VALUE AT WHICH THE SHARES OR THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY ARAVALI POLYMERS PVT. LTD. WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WOULD BE THE SALE PRICE AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION THEREOF IS TO BE AS PER BOOKS OF T THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTION 45 IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL TAKE THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS ON 12.10.2010 AT THE FIGURE, AT WHICH THE ASSETS OF THE BY THE APPELLANT ARAVALI POLYMERS LLP. 12. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE, TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS TAKEN OVER BY THE COMPANY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS T VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IS RS.2,70,69, ACQUISITION OF ASSETS. AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE FULL VALUE RECEIVED ON SALE ARE THE SAME FIGURE, NO CAPITAL GAINS HAS ACCRUED OR WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS IS HEREBY DELETED. 13. WE NOW DEAL WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INCO QUESTION IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AFTER VALUING THE SHARES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. J.S. TRADEX PVT. LTD. UNDER RULE 11UA R.W.S. 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT. THE PARTICULAR SUB - THE SHARES THAT WERE ALLOTTED BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE, READS AS FOLLOWS: (C) ANY PROPERTY, OTHER THAN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY: (I) WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, THE AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF WHICH EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE WHOLE OF THE (II) FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LESS THAN THE AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS EXCEEDS SUCH CONSIDERATIO 8 THE KOLKATA C BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. ARAVALI POLYMERS LLP AT PARA 12 HELD AS FOLLOWS: - IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, NOWHERE IN THE ACT IS THERE PROVISION, MORE SO IN SECTION 45, FOR DEEMING THE SALE PRICE IN T CASE OF EQUITY SHARES. THE VALUE AT WHICH THE SHARES OR THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY ARAVALI POLYMERS PVT. LTD. WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WOULD BE THE SALE PRICE AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION THEREOF IS TO BE AS PER BOOKS OF T HE ERSTWHILE COMPANY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTION 45 IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL TAKE THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS ON 12.10.2010 AT THE FIGURE, AT WHICH THE ASSETS OF THE ERSTWHILE FIRM HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OR TAKEN OVER BY THE APPELLANT ARAVALI POLYMERS LLP. APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE, TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS TAKEN OVER BY THE COMPANY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS T VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IS RS.2,70,69, 200/- . THIS IS ALSO, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS. AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE FULL VALUE RECEIVED ON SALE ARE THE SAME FIGURE, NO CAPITAL GAINS HAS ACCRUED OR WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS IS HEREBY DELETED. WE NOW DEAL WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INCO QUESTION IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AFTER VALUING THE SHARES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. J.S. TRADEX PVT. LTD. UNDER RULE 11UA R.W.S. 56(2)(VII)(C) OF - SECTION UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUG THE SHARES THAT WERE ALLOTTED BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE, READS AS FOLLOWS: (C) ANY PROPERTY, OTHER THAN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY: - WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, THE AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF WHICH EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE WHOLE OF THE AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY; FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LESS THAN THE AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS EXCEEDS SUCH CONSIDERATIO N. ITA NO. 2292/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. RAVI JALAN M/S. ARAVALI POLYMERS LLP IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, NOWHERE IN THE ACT IS THERE PROVISION, MORE SO IN SECTION 45, FOR DEEMING THE SALE PRICE IN T HE CASE OF EQUITY SHARES. THE VALUE AT WHICH THE SHARES OR THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY ARAVALI POLYMERS PVT. LTD. WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WOULD BE THE SALE PRICE AND THE COST OF HE ERSTWHILE COMPANY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECTION 45 IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO SHALL TAKE THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS ON 12.10.2010 AT THE FIGURE, AT ERSTWHILE FIRM HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OR TAKEN OVER APPLYING THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THE CASE, TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND, THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS TAKEN OVER BY THE COMPANY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS T HE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE ACT. IN . THIS IS ALSO, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS. AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE ARE THE SAME FIGURE, NO CAPITAL GAINS HAS ACCRUED OR WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS IS HEREBY DELETED. WE NOW DEAL WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INCO ME IN QUESTION IS ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AFTER VALUING THE SHARES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. J.S. TRADEX PVT. LTD. UNDER RULE 11UA R.W.S. 56(2)(VII)(C) OF SECTION UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUG HT TO VALUE THE SHARES THAT WERE ALLOTTED BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE, READS AS FOLLOWS: - WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, THE AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF WHICH EXCEEDS FIFTY THOUSAND AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY; FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LESS THAN THE AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING FIFTY THOUSAND RUPEES, THE AGGREGATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF SUCH 13.1. THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,24,54,080/ UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HE HAS NOT THIS AMOUNT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE INVOKED. OF TRANSFER IS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, AS IN THIS CASE. OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES WAS EXECUTED ON 27/03/2012 AND WHEREAS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DONE THE VALUATION UNDER RULE 11UA(1)(C)(B) ON 31/03/2017 DONE ON 31/03/2012, FOR 40,000 SHARES WERE ALLOTTED AT SHARE. IF THE SHARES ARE VALUED ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER I.E., ON 27/03/2012, WHICH IS BEFORE THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AT A PREMIUM, THE VALUE WOULD COME TO RS.10/ 13.2. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOTTED CERTAIN SHARES AS CO TRANSFER, THEN THE QUESTION OF VALUE OF THOSE SHARES BY INVOKING SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT, DOES NOT ARISE. WHEN A VALUE VALUE OF THE ASSET TRANSFERRED. IT IS NOT THE CAS HAS NOT VALUED THE ASSETS WHILE TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE COMPANY. WHAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT THIS EXCHANGE/BARTER IS ON A PARTICULAR DATE. WHEN THE EXCHANGE WAS ON 27/03/2012 AND WHEN THE OFFICER SEEKS TO VALUE THE ALREADY ALLOTTED 40,000 EQUITY SHARES AT A PREMIUM OF PREMIUM OF RS.1,56,00,000/ NOT LAID DOWN UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT. LAW. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DELETE, BOTH THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS UNDER THE HEAD I OF TRANSFER. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 2(A) OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 15. GROUND NO. 3 IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL A THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE TAXMANN.COM 415 (DELHI - TRIB.) 9 THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,24,54,080/ UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. HE HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE THIS AMOUNT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE INVOKED. THE SUB- SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF TRANSFER IS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, AS IN THIS CASE. MOREOVER , AN AGREEMENT OF TRANSFER OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES WAS EXECUTED ON 27/03/2012 AND WHEREAS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER RULE 11UA(1)(C)(B) ON 31/03/2017 . THE EXERCISE WAS DONE ON 31/03/2012, FOR 40,000 SHARES WERE ALLOTTED AT A PREMIUM IF THE SHARES ARE VALUED ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER I.E., ON 27/03/2012, WHICH IS BEFORE THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AT A PREMIUM, THE VALUE WOULD COME TO RS.10/ WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOTTED CERTAIN SHARES AS CO NSIDERATION FOR PROPERTY TRANSFER, THEN THE QUESTION OF VALUE OF THOSE SHARES BY INVOKING SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF THE ACT, DOES NOT ARISE. WHEN A VALUE IS FIXED FOR A SHARE ALLOTTED, IT REFLECTS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET TRANSFERRED. IT IS NOT THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE VALUED THE ASSETS WHILE TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE COMPANY. WHAT IS TO BE IS THAT THIS EXCHANGE/BARTER IS ON A PARTICULAR DATE. WHEN THE EXCHANGE WAS WHEN THE SHARES WERE A LLOTTED ON 27/03/2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKS TO VALUE THE ALREADY ALLOTTED SHARES ON 31/03/2012 I.E., A PREMIUM OF RS.400/- PER SHARE WHICH G PREMIUM OF RS.1,56,00,000/ -. THIS IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. SUCH METHOD OF NOT LAID DOWN UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT. THUS, THE SAME IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DELETE, BOTH THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THE ISSUE OF TRANSFER. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 2(A) OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 3 IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL A PPLY THE JUDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. TRIB.) AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE ITA NO. 2292/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. RAVI JALAN THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,24,54,080/ - IS ASSESSABLE ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THIS AMOUNT CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. WHILE COMPUTING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) SECTION IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THE SUBJECT MATTER , AN AGREEMENT OF TRANSFER OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES WAS EXECUTED ON 27/03/2012 AND WHEREAS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE EXERCISE WAS A PREMIUM I.E., RS.400/- PER IF THE SHARES ARE VALUED ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER I.E., ON 27/03/2012, WHICH IS BEFORE THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AT A PREMIUM, THE VALUE WOULD COME TO RS.10/ - PER SHARE. NSIDERATION FOR PROPERTY TRANSFER, THEN THE QUESTION OF VALUE OF THOSE SHARES BY INVOKING SECTION 56(2)(VII)(C) OF IS FIXED FOR A SHARE ALLOTTED, IT REFLECTS THE MARKET E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE VALUED THE ASSETS WHILE TRANSFERRING THE SAME TO THE COMPANY. WHAT IS TO BE IS THAT THIS EXCHANGE/BARTER IS ON A PARTICULAR DATE. WHEN THE EXCHANGE WAS LLOTTED ON 27/03/2012, THE ASSESSING AFTER ALLOTMENT OF PER SHARE WHICH G AVE THE COMPANY METHOD OF COMPUTATION IS THUS, THE SAME IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DELETE, BOTH THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ON THE ISSUE GROUND NO. 3 IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH PPLY THE JUDGMENT OF ACIT VS. VIREET INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. [2017] 82 TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE DIVIDEND YIELDING W ITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A NO. 3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. GROUND NO. 4, IS ALLOWED AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,38,690/ TOTAL CLOSING STOCK OF GOLD WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED IS RS.1.99 CRORES AND THIS ADDITION, IS MINIS CULE AND NOT SUPPORTED WITH COGENT EVIDENCE. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE SD/- [S.S. GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15.01.2020 {SC SPS} COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. RAVI JALAN 4, B.B.D. BAG EAST 1 ST FLOOR ROOM NO. 5A KOLKATA 700 001 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3.CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. 10 ITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A R.W.R. 8D. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NO. 4, IS ALLOWED AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,38,690/ TOTAL CLOSING STOCK OF GOLD WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED IS RS.1.99 CRORES AND THIS ADDITION, IS CULE AND NOT SUPPORTED WITH COGENT EVIDENCE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. KOLKATA, THE 15 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 20 20 [ J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 36(1), KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES ITA NO. 2292/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. RAVI JALAN R.W.R. 8D. IN THE RESULT, GROUND GROUND NO. 4, IS ALLOWED AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,38,690/ - IS DELETED AS THE TOTAL CLOSING STOCK OF GOLD WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED IS RS.1.99 CRORES AND THIS ADDITION, IS 20 . SD/- J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES