The ACIT -1 Kanpur, Kanpur V. Smt Sultana Parveen, Kanpur

ITA 738/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78576 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.738/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004 - 05 A.C.I.T. - 1, KANPUR. VS. SMT. SULTANA PARVEEN, 601 - C, DEFENCE COLONY, JAJMAU, KANPUR. PAN:AINPP8960F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 22/05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - II, KANPUR DATED 22/09/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 2005. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,40,330/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF 'INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES' AS AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR DT. 22.09.2011 NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND ORDER DT 22.12.2006 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE RESTORED. 2 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MENTIONED ABOVE AND/OR TO ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS AS AND WHEN IT IS REQUIRED TO DO SO. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNE D A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SMT. MAHAVISH AYESHA IN I.T.A. NO.699/LKW/2011 DATED 21/03/2013. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESS MENT O RDER, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE NAME OF THIS ASSESSEE I.E. SMT. SULTANA PARVEEN IS ALSO APPEARING IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTIONS OF THE SHARES OF STANLEY CREDIT CAPITAL LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THE FACTS O F THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL AND HENCE, AS PER THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THE NAMES OF 4 FAMILY MEMBE RS OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE NAME OF MAHAVISH AYESHA. IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PRESENT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AND SOLD 9,000 SHARES WHEREAS MAHAVISH AYESHA PURCHASED AND SOLD 9,000 SHARES OF THE SAME COMPANY ON SAME DATE AT SAME P RICE. HENCE, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AND UNDER THESE FACTS IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SMT. MAHAVISH AYESHA (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING TWO OTHER TRIBUNAL DECISIONS OF LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SUDEEP GOENKA IN I.T.A. NO.208/LKW/09 AND IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. GAUR HARI YADUPATI SINGHANIA HUF IN I.T.A. NO.606/LKW/2010 DATED 12/01/2011. SINCE NO DIFFERENCE IN FACTS COULD BE POINTED OUT BY LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW IN THE PRESENT CASE. 3 HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WA S PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /06/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR