MRS. NIRMALA, CHENNAI V. ITO NON CORP WARD 5 (2), CHENNAI

ITA 520/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1009 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Set Aside
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI D ANAND
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim
• Section: 2; 5(2)

Judgement Text

, (SMC) , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B ( SMC ) BENCH : CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.520/CHNY/2018. ! ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-2015. MRS. NIRMALA, NO.65/66, IST FLOOR, M.S. KOIL STREET, ROYAPURAM, CHENNAI 600 013. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. NON CORPORATE WARD 5(2) CHENNAI. [PAN AABPN 0840J] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) # $ % / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SHRI. D. ANAND, ADVOCATE &'# $ % /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. B. SAGADEVAN, IRS, JCIT. ( ) $ *+ /DATE OF HEARING : 18-09-2018 ,-'! $ *+ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-09-2018 / 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 08.11.2017 OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI, IT IS AGGRIEVED ON DENIAL O F EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF @9,60,977/-, ARISING ON TRANS FER OF SHARES CLAIMED ITA NO.520 /2018 :- 2 -: U/S.10(38) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND TREATING SUCH SUM AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAD EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF @9,60,977/- ON SA LE OF SHARES OF ONE M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD WHICH WAS CLAIMED A S EXEMPT U/S.10(38) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E, 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. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD WAS A PENNY STOCK COM PANY. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE HAD INITIAL LY PURCHASED SHARES OF M/S. PANCHSHUL MARKETING LIMITED WHICH WAS LATER MERGED WITH M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED EQUAL NUMBER OF SHARES IN THE LATTER COMPANY ON SUCH MERGER, WHICH WAS UNDER A SC HEME APPROVED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT PURCHASE OF THE SHARES OF M/S. PANCHSHUL MARKETING LIMITED WAS GENUINE THOUGH IT WAS DONE OFF MARKET. THE SALE OF THE SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED 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 ITA NO.520 /2018 :- 3 -: AND COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT PRICES OF M/S. KAIL ASH AUTO FINANCE LTD WERE JACKED UP ARTIFICIALLY AND ASSESSEE HAD MADE C LAIM A BOGUS CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THESE STATEMENTS, NOR THE REPORTS OF THE INVESTIGAT ION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT WERE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE. RELYING ON TH E DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND VS. ITO, PRAVEEN CHAND VS. ITO, 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 SIMILAR CASES WHERE THERE WAS A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTIO N OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD, THE TRIBUNAL HAD GIVEN DIRECTIONS TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERING THE ISSUE ADHERING TO THE RULES O F 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 AUTHORITIES TO DISBELIEVE THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW HOW HE INDEN TIFIED THE SHARES OF M/S. PANCHSHUL MARKETING LIMITED FOR MAKING AN OFF MARKET PURCHASE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO PLACED RELIAN CE ON A DECISION OF ITA NO.520 /2018 :- 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. KAILASH A UTO FINANCE LTD. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INITIALLY A CQUIRED THE SHARES OF ONE OF M/S. PANCHSHUL MARKETING LIMITED, WHICH WA S LATER MERGED WITH M/S. KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. 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. KAI LASH 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 .03.2016, IN THE CASE OF M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD.. IT I S TRUE THAT IN THE ABOVE ORDER, THERE IS A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF MO DUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY ABOUT ELEVEN NUMBERS OF COMPANI ES, INTER ALIA INCLUDING M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. IT ALSO MENTIONS HOW M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., HAD BUI LT UP A HUGE SHARE PREMIUM WITHIN A SHORT TIME OF ITS INCOR PORATION. SEBI HAD ALSO ANALYSED THE FINANCIALS OF M/S.CPAN A ND M/S.PML, WHICH WERE MERGED WITH M/S.KAILASH AUTO FI NANCE LTD.,AND FOUND THAT THERE WAS DISPROPORTIONATE ISSU E OF BONUS SHARES BY THESE TWO COMPANIES. APART FROM THE SEBI REPORT, LOWER AUTHORITIES HAD ALSO RELIED ON A STAT EMENT OBTAINED FROM MR.SUNIL DOKANIA ON 12.06.2015 AND T HE ITA NO.520 /2018 :- 5 -: REPORT OF INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT. WHA T I CAN DISCERN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY MR.SUNIL DOKANIA, NOR THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THESE WENT AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE, RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT ASS ESSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN SUCH 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 AVAILABILI TY OF THE EQUITY SHARES OF M/S.PANCHSHUL MARKETING LTD., WHEN THE SAID 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 ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN DONE PURSUANT TO A SEARCH, OUGHT HAVE BEEN U/S.153A TO 153D OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S.1 43(3), I AM AFRAID I CANNOT TOE THIS LINE OF REASONING. REL EVANT PARA IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELIED BY THE LD.A.R, FOR B UTTRESSING THIS ARGUMENT REPRODUCED AT PARA ELEVEN ABOVE, HARD LY SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE ASSESSEE W AS PURSUANT TO A SEARCH. JUST BECAUSE AN INVESTIGATION WAS DONE BY THE INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT, BASED ON SOME LEADS THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD, REPORTS OF WHICH WERE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO MEA N THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS PURSUANT TO ANY SEARCH. THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER 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 ITA NO.520 /2018 :- 6 -: ALIA INCLUDING M/S.KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD., FROM BUYING, 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 CA PITAL 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 FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERA TION 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 ADMIT TEDLY 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 PURCHASED 15000 SHARES FROM M/S.BPL @ RS.20/- PER S HARE TOTALING INTO RS.3,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE PAID CASH FOR THE PURCHASE OF THESE SHARES. THE PR IMARY 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 SHA RE CERTIFICATES AND THE SHARE TRANSFER FORMS? HOW DID THE ASSESSEE OVERCOME THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.40A(3)? WA S ITA NO.520 /2018 :- 7 -: 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 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 THE 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 ITA NO.520 /2018 :- 8 -: 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 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 WHETHER R EAL OR SHAM, REQUIRES A REVISIT BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILAR DIR ECTIONS AS GIVEN IN THE CASES OF VIMALCHAND GULABCHAND, PRAVEEN CHAND, GATRAJ JAIN & SONS (HUF) AND MAHENDRA KUMAR BHANDARI (SUPRA), READ A LONGWITH THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF HEERACHAND KANUNGA (SUPRA) ARE GIVEN HEREALSO. USEFUL REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO THE LAW L AID 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 CASE OF CIT VS.SMT. SUNITA DHADDA , WHERE ITA NO.520 /2018 :- 9 -: THE IMPORTANCE OF PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS HAS BEEN STRESSED. THEIR LORDSHIP HELD THAT THIS W AS AN IMPORTANT CONSTITUENT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ONLY AFTER ALL TH E STEPS REQUIRED UNDER LAW IS COMPLETE, IT CAN BE ASCERTAINED WHETHER CLA IM OF CAPITAL GAINS WAS BOGUS OR NOT. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEP TEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !'# . $%$& ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .) / CHENNAI / / DATED:-18TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. KV 0 $ &*12 32'* / COPY TO: 1 . # / APPELLANT 3. ( 4* () / CIT(A) 5. 278 &*9 / DR 2. &'# / RESPONDENT 4. ( 4* / CIT 6. 8: ;) / GF