Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80243 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-08-2014
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
31-07-2014
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
26-02-2010
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 636 AND CO. 122 /AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 06-07) THE A.C.I.T VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI V/S RAJKUMARI R. BHATIA BHATIA HOUSE, OPP. PLAY GROUND VAGHDHARA ROAD, DADRA MOTI DAMAN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) RAJKUMARI R. BHATIA BHATIA HOUSE, OPP. PLAY GROUND VAGHDHARA ROAD, DADRA MOTI DAMAN V/S THE A.C.I.T VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ADDPB 9368G APPELLANT BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAPNESH SHETH A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING :31-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-08-2014 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 10.10.2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED C.O. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. ITA NO 636 & C.O. 122/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 2 3. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVING INCOM E FROM CAPITAL GAINS. ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 06-07 ON 11.10.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,62,201/-. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ORDER WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 2 6.12.2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 12,34,200/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 10.10.2009 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE SAL E PRICE OF 9600 SHARES OF KANCHAN INTL LTD TAKEN AS LTCG AM OUNTING TO RS.6,72,000/- 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O N OTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 9,600 SHARES OF KANCHAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED OF RS. 5,74,804/- WAS CONSIDERED AS EXEMPT U /S. 10(38) OF THE ACT. A.O ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND FURNISH THE DE-MAT ACCOUNT SHOWING THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF AFORESAID SHARES IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE FILE D COPY OF PURCHASE AND SALES BILL OF SUB BROKER M/S. A.M. CONSULTANT. ON P ERUSING THE BILL, A.O NOTICED THAT SUB-BROKER HAD NOT MENTIONED DETAILS R EGARDING MAIN BORKER, STOCK EXCHANGE THROUGH WHICH THE TRANSACTION TOOK P LACE ETC. AND THEREFORE HE ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 133(6) TO THE SUB-BROKER M/S . A.M CONSULTANTS AND CALLED FOR THE DETAILS LISTED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ORDE R. A.O NOTICED THAT THE SUB- BROKER HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE SPECIFIC DETAILS A ND HE THEREFORE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NO T PROVED. HE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE WHOLE RECEIPT AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,72, 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT . AGGRIEVED BY THE O RDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE ITA NO 636 & C.O. 122/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 3 CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) DELETED TH E ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4- DECISION ; WITH REGARDS TO THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL THE AO O BSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS, 5,74,804/- ON T HE SALE OF 9600 SHARES OF KANCHAN INTERNATIONAL. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED T HESE SHARES ON 23.04.2004 AND SOLD THE SAME ON 29/30/12,2005. ACCORDINGLY, SHE CLAIMED AN EXEMPTIO N U/S. 10(38) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF COPY OF DE- MAT ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT FILED ALL THE DETAILS. HOWEVER, SHE FAILE D TO FURNISH THE DE-MAT ACCOUNT IN RELATING TO THE TRANSACTION APPEARING IN THE OF THE SUB-CONTRACTOR, NOTICE U/S. 113(6) WAS ISSUED TO THE SUB-CONTRACTO R, ASKING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS BUT THE SUB-CONTRACTOR F AILED FURNISH THE SPECIFIED DETAILS. HE FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT THE APPELLANT FURNISH THE TRANSACTION STATEMEN T IN THE DE-MAT ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 0406/2005 TO 30/06/2008 WHEREIN, IT IS REFLECTED THAT THERE WAS NO BALANCE SHARE IN DE-MAT ACCOUNT OF KANCHAN INTERNATIONAL LTD., WHICH ARE CLAIMED TO BE SOLD IN THE DECEMBER, 2005. SINCE, THE APPELLANT FAILED FURNISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND OT HER RELEVANT DETAILS, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED A S UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961. 4.2 THE ID. AR OF THE APPELLANT FURNISHED A LETTER FROM M/S. A.M. CONSULTANTS, THE SHARE BROKER, CONFI RMING THE SALE OF SHARES OF KANCHAN INTERNATIONAL LTD. AL ONG WITH TRANSACTION STATEMENT, PRO NOTE ETC. TO JU STIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM. 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ID. AR OF THE APPELLANT IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS WELL AS THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO IN THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WHILE MAKING AN ADDITION SEEMS TO BE JUSTIFIED AS THE APP ELLANT DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS CALLED FOR TO ES TABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HOWEVER, CONSI DERING THE LETTER OF SHARE BROKER, M/S. A.M.CONSULTANTS, ALONG WITH THE DETAILS OF SHARES O F THE APPELLANT AND SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX, THE C LAIM OF THE APPELLANT SEEMS TO BE JUSTIFIED. THUS, THE CLAI M OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FURTHER SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O THE LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE CIT(A). HE F URTHER PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE DEMAT ACCOUNT, THE COPY OF THE LETT ER OF THE CONSULTANT WHEREIN IT WAS CONFIRMED THAT THE SHARES WERE TRANS FERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ITS ACCOUNT. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS NO TED THAT THE SHARE BROKER HAS CONFIRMED THE DETAILS OF SHARE OF ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE S EEMS TO BE JUSTIFIED. ITA NO 636 & C.O. 122/AHD/2010 . A.Y. 2006- 07 4 BEFORE US, LD. A.R. HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE C OPY OF THE LETTER OF SUB- BROKER AND THE COPY OF DE-MAT ACCOUNT MAINTAIN WITH HDFC BANK TO PROVE THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD . CIT(A) AND LD. A.R.. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. C.O NO. 122/AHD/2010 WAS NOT PRESSED BY LD. A.R. AN D THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AND C.O OF ASS ESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07 -08 - 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AH MEDABAD
