Kantilal Bharat Doshi, CHENNAI V. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2611/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6418 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S. BHARATH
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Share purchase agreement; Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim; Set aside; Capital Gains; Bogus
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . , [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.2611/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-2016. KANTILAL BHARAT DOSHI, NO.249, SYDENHAMS ROAD, PERIAMET, CHENNAI 600 003. [PAN AAPPB 6885P] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1) CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. T. PRAMODKUMAR CHOPDA, ADV. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S. BHA RATH , IRS, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 14.01.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.01.2019 / 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 29.06.2018 OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI, IT IS AGGRIEVED ON DENIAL O F EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF 10,88,044/-, ARISING ON TRAN SFER OF SHARES CLAIMED U/S.10(38) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ITA NO. 2611/CHNY/18 :- 2 -: AND TREATING A SUM OF 11,20,194/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAD SOLD 32,150 SHARES OF ONE M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 11,20,194/- AND EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF 10,88,044/- ARISING FROM SUCH SALE, WHICH WAS CLA IMED AS EXEMPT U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED RE PRESENTATIVE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES DISBELIEVED THE SALE OF THE SHAR ES, RELYING ON REPORTS OF DIRECTORATE OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) KOLKAT A AND DELHI, WHICH MENTIONED THAT M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD WAS A PENNY STOCK COMPANY. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 32,150 SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINAN CE LTD ON 9.4.2013 FOR 32,150/-. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE WAS THAT PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES WERE GENUINE THOUG H, IT WAS DONE OFF MARKET. THE SALE OF THESE SHARES, AS PER THE LD. AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE, WAS MADE THROUGH RECOGNIZED STOCK E XCHANGE AND OUGHT NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM V ARIOUS PERSONS WERE RELIED ON BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR DISBELI EVING THE TRANSACTIONS AND COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT PRICE S OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD WERE JACKED UP ARTIFICIALLY AND AS SESSEE HAD MADE CLAIM A BOGUS CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. LD . AUTHORISED ITA NO. 2611/CHNY/18 :- 3 -: 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 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. KAILA SH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 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. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD, 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. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW HE INDENTIFIED THE SHARES OF THE SAID COMPANY FOR MAKING AN OFF MARKET PURCHASE. ITA NO. 2611/CHNY/18 :- 4 -: LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PLACED RELIAN CE 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. KAILAS H AUTO FINANCE LTD. 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 OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD, THIS TRIBUNAL HAD HELD AS UNDER AT PARA 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 ITA NO. 2611/CHNY/18 :- 5 -: AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY MR.SUNIL DOKANIA, NOR 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. 2611/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 H AS TO BE SUPPORTED BY FACTS AND THE FACTS ARE UNFORTUNATE LY 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 GAINS TO HIS CLIENTS. THE SAID SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KA YAN ALSO ALLEGEDLY SEEMS TO HAVE PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE S NAME AND PAN AS ONE OF THE BENEFICIARIES. HOWEVER, THIS STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAYAN CANN OT 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 ABSE NCE OF OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, THE STATEMENT REMAINS MERE INFORMATION AND SUCH INFORMATION CANNO T 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. THE 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 RECEIVED THE SHARE CERTIFICATES AND THE SHARE TRANS FER FORMS? HOW DID THE ASSESSEE OVERCOME THE PROVISION S OF SEC.40A(3)? WAS THERE ADEQUATE CASH AVAILABILIT Y IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ON 24.04.2008? DID THE ASSESSEE TRAVELLED TO KOLKATA? HOW WAS THE TRANSAC TION DONE? WHO APPLIED FOR THE DEMATING OF THE SHARES? WHEN WERE THEY DEMATED? WHEN WERE THE SHARES TRANSFERRED TO THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE? T O WHOM WERE THE SHARES SOLD DURING THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 2611/CHNY/18 :- 7 -: YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12? WHEN WERE THE CHEQUES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE? FROM WHOM DID THE 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 SHARE S 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 PURCHASED THE SHARES OF M/S.BPL FROM A SUB-BROKER I N HIS FRIENDS 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 PHYSICAL FORM? IN PARA NO.8.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THA T THE ASSESSEE IS AN INVESTOR AND HAS BEEN REGULARLY TRAD ING IN SHARES. IF THIS IS SO, DOES THE DEMAT ACCOUNT S HOW SUCH TRANSACTIONS BEING DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OR IS THIS THE ONLY ONE OF TRANSACTION. THUS, CLEARLY THE FAC TS REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEALS ARE NOT FORTHCOMING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SH OW 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 SHAR ES 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 THE LD.AR THAT THE DEMAT WAS DONE ON VARIOUS DATES. THEN THE QUESTION RISES AS TO WHY T HERE IS SO MUCH OF DIFFERENCE IN THE DATES OF DEMATING W HEN 15000 SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED TOGETHER ON 24.04.2008. NO DETAILS IN RESPECT OF M/S.BPL COMPA NY IS KNOWN, WHAT IS THE PRODUCT OF THE COMPANY WHICH HAD LEAD TO THE SHARE VALUE OF THE COMPANY TO GO UP FRO M RS.20/- TO RS.352/- IN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. THIS WOULD CLEARLY BE A CASE WHERE THE SHARE VALUE OF THE COMP ANY WAS HITTING THE CIRCUIT BREAKER OF THE STOCK EXCHAN GE ON A DAILY BASIS AND OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD HAVE DRAWN ATTENTION. THIS BEING SO, AS THE FACTS ARE NOT COM ING 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 ITA NO. 2611/CHNY/18 :- 8 -: THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE AS SESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE AND W E 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 REQUI RED BY THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM AS ALSO BY PROD UCING THE PERSONS THROUGH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN THE TRANSACTION OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE SUB-BROKER, FRIE ND AND THE BROKER THROUGH WHOM THE TRANSACTION HAS BEE N 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 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 ITA NO. 2611/CHNY/18 :- 9 -: CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS HAS BEEN STRESSED. THEIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT 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 F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 14 TH JANUARY, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED: 14 TH JANUARY, 2019 KV / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 5. / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. / CIT 6. / GF