Smt. Sumandevi Parmatmaprasad Agrawal, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -10(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 927/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5749 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K H SHAH
• Keywords: Salary income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Tangible material; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER !# I.T.A. NO. 927/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SUMANDEVI PARMATMAPRASAD AGRAWAL C/O. KETAN H. SHAH, ADVOCATE 903, SAPPHIRE COMPLEX, C.G. ROAD, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD. # VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 10(4) AHMEDABAD $ # % & # PAN/GIR NO. : ABDPA 8085 D ( !$' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' # RESPONDENT ) !$') # APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.H. SHAH, A.R. ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR.D.R. + ,*-. / DATE OF HEARING 22/06/2017 /012*-. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/06/2017 3# O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 03/02/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2005-06. ITA NO.927/AHD/ 2014 SUMANDEVI P. AGRAWAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - 2. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEA LS: I. IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TOWARDS SO-CALLED DEE MED INCOME AT RS.13,64,250/- INSTEAD OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE. II. IN NOR GIVING DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO ACCEPT THE RETURNED INCOME AT RS.13,55,220/- AS AGAINST ASSESS ED INCOME DETERMINED AT RS.16,12,050/- III. IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE PROCEED INGS U/S.147 R.W.S. 151(2) IS ITSELF BAD IN LAW, VOID AB INITIO, ILLEGA L AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED A N APPLICATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECENTLY ON 27/03/2014 AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE PRAYS BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH TO ALTER AN Y OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/DELETE/ALTER AND/ OR AMEND ANY OF GROUNDS AS AFORESAID AS AND WHEN NECESSARY. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT IS HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY, PROPE RTY INCOME, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF INTEREST INCOME. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 31/08/2005 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 13,55,220/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1). SUBSEQUENTLY, SEAR CH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE GR OUP CASES OF SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI AND THEREAFTER, THIS CASE WAS REOPENE D. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 19/12/2012 ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.16,12,050/- AFTER MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITION WHICH WAS DISPUTED IN THIS APPEAL. ITA NO.927/AHD/ 2014 SUMANDEVI P. AGRAWAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - 3.1 DEEMED INCOME TOTAL PROCEEDS IN RESPECT OF SA LE OF SHARES RS.13,64,250/- THE ABOVE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SAME WAS CONF IRMED BY THE CIT(A) THERE WAS SEARCH OPERATION IN GROUP CASE S OF M/S. MAHASAGAR SECURITIES LTD. AND SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI, D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI HAD ADMITTED T HAT THE GROUP WAS ENGAGED IN FRAUDULENT BILLING ACTIVITIES IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING BOGUS SPECULATION PROFIT/LOSS, SHORT TERM /LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS. FURTHER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TOTALLY RELIED ON INF ORMATION RECEIVED FROM DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.) MUMBAI. 3.2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED BOTH ON FACTS AND LAW AS UNDER: I. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN ALL THE EVIDENCES OF T RANSACTION OF SHARES I.E. PURCHASE BILLS, SALES BILLS, COPY OF BA NK STATEMENT, COPY OF DEMAT A/C ETC. II. SECONDLY, AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AS RESULT OF SEARCH O PERATION BUT UNLESS THE SAID MATERIAL WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT & ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PARTY, THE SAME CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE APPELLANT OR ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE COUL D BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI WITHOUT ALLOWING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EX AMINE HIM. ITA NO.927/AHD/ 2014 SUMANDEVI P. AGRAWAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - SUCH A STATEMENT WAS BINDING UPON THE MAKER OF THE STATEMENT AND NOT TO THE THIRD PARTY AS HELD IN CASE OF KISHA NCHAND CHELLARAM (125 ITR 713) AND MAULIK SHAH (307 ITR 13 7) (A) STATEMENT OF MUKESH CHOKSI HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO TH E APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM. THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE A UTHORITIES BELOW UPON SUCH STATEMENT IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. (B) AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH E PURCHASE OF SHARES WERE MADE IN PREVIOUS YEAR (THE ASSESSMENT H AS BEEN MADE) SHARES WERE IN DEMAT A/C, PAYMENT HAS BEEN RE CEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND REQUESTED THAT AN ADDIT ION OF RS.13,64,250/- BE DELETED AGAINST THE DEEMED INCOME OF RS.13,64,250/- AND ACCEPTING THE RETURN INCOME AT R S.13,55,220/- AS AGAINST ASSESSED INCOME DETERMINED AT RS.16,12,0 50/- AND IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S .147 R.W.S.151(2) WAS BAD IN LAW . 4. ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BUT NO AVAIL AND LEARNED CIT DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 5. NOW APPELLANTS APPEAL IS BEFORE US. 6. IN THIS CASE, ITO ISSUED AN LETTER DATED 07/08/2 012 U/S.148 OF INCOME TAX ACT FOR A.Y.2005-06 REGARDING REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND REASON WAS GIVEN AS UNDER: AS PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE, YOU HAD EARNED PROFI T OF RS.3,05,300/- BY TRANSACTING IN SHARES OF M/S. TALE NT INFOWAYS LTD. AND RS.9,98,550/- THROUGH BROKER NAMED M/S. GO LDSTAR FINVEST PVT. LTD. NOW KNOWN AS M/S. MAHASAGAR SECUR ITIES LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED SUCH CAPITAL GAIN AS L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND PAID TAXES THEREON. AS PER INFORMA TION AVAILABLE, NO SUCH TRANSACTION HAD EVER OCCURRED TH ROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE SAID BROKER HAD MERELY PROVIDED TH E ITA NO.927/AHD/ 2014 SUMANDEVI P. AGRAWAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 5 - ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN EXCHANGE OF THE EQUIVALENT CASH FROM YOU AND CHARGED COMMISSION WHICH WAS NOT MENTION IN OUR RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y.2005-06. 6.1 IN REPLY TO THE SAID NOTICE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT WROTE A LETTER DATED 02/08/2014 REQUESTING THAT KINDLY PROVIDE ME SO-CALLED NOTICE ON VARIOUS PERSONS WHO HAVE TAKEN ENTRY OF B OGUS BILLING AS PER ALLEGATION MADE IN THE REASON RECORDED OF MAHAN AGAR SECURITY PVT. LTD. PLEASE LET ME KNOW AS TO WHETHER MY NAME IS APPEARED OR NOT? FURTHER, REQUEST IS MADE IN REFERENCE TO SO-CA LLED ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF RS.13,61,000/- AND WHETHER THIS AMOUNT IS REFLECTED IN THE LIST GIVEN BY SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI OF MAHANAG AR SECURITY PVT. LTD. YOUR HONOUR WOULD PLEASE TO APPRECIATE TH AT THOUGH IT IS CASE OF SECTION 143(1), THERE SHOULD BE SOME TANGIB LE MATERIAL TO REOPEN THE CASE AND IT CANNOT BE REOPENED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURE AND SURMISES. FURTHER, IT IS NECESSARY T O HAVE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WITH THE NAME OF ASSESSEE IN THE SO-CALLED SEIZED MATERIAL. IT IS FURTHER REQUESTED THAT THE CASE CAN NOT BE REOPENED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INFORMATION RECEIVED WI THOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. 6.2 THEREFORE, OBJECTION DATED 27/03/2014 BY THE AS SESSEE AND ALSO VARIOUS OBJECTIONS TAKEN IN THIS MATTER WITHIN DAYS OF RECEIPT OF LETTER. YOUR HONOR AS KNOWING TO SAY IN THE MATT ER AND THERE IS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE . ITA NO.927/AHD/ 2014 SUMANDEVI P. AGRAWAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 6 - 6.3 ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ORDER OF PRESENT BENCH IN ITA NO.501 AND 502/AHD/2016 DATED 9 TH MARCH 2017 AND IT WAS HELD IN THOSE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: 17. EVEN ON FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THERE IS NO DENYING THAT CONSIDERATION WAS PAID WHEN THE SHARES WERE PURCHAS ED. THE SHARES WERE THEREAFTER SENT TO THE COMPANY FOR THE TRANSFER OF NAME. THE COMPANY TRANSFERRED THE SHARES IN THE NAM E OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH COULD SU GGEST THAT THE SHARES WERE NEVER TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE AS SESSEE. THERE IS ALSO NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE SHARE S WERE NEVER WITH THE ASSESSEE. ON THE CONTRARY, THE SHARES WERE THEREAFTER TRANSFERRED TO DEMAT ACCOUNT. THE DEMAT ACCOUNT WAS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, FROM WHERE THE SHARES WERE SO LD. IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS, IF THE SHARES WERE OF S OME FICTITIOUS COMPANY WHICH WAS NOT LISTED IN THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE/NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE, THE SHARES COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO DEMAT ACCOUNT. SHRI MUKESH CHOK SI MAY HAVE BEEN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOU S PERSONS BUT SO FAR AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND SUGGEST THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN. 18. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) AN D CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES IN RESPECT OF PENNY STOCK BY DISREGARDING THE DIRECT EVIDENCES ON RECORD RELATING TO THE SALE/PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS IN SHARE S SUPPORTED BY BROKERS CONTRACT NOTES, CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS THROUGH REGULAR BANKING CHANNELS AND THE DEMAT ACCO UNT. 19. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE AO TO TREAT THE GAIN S ARISING OUT OF THE SALE OF SHARES UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GA INS SHORT TERM OR LONG TERM AS THE CASE MAY BE. THE OTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. ITA NO.927/AHD/ 2014 SUMANDEVI P. AGRAWAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 7 - 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. 6.4 ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CITED AN ORDER OF THIS CO-ORD INATING BENCH IN ITA NO.1442/AHD/2013 AND CO NO.209/AHD/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN THIS CASE, WHICH WAS HEL D REPRODUCE AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. APROPOS THE ISSUE OF ALLEGED S HARE SCAM OF SHRI MUKESH CHOKSI, THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY CONS IDERED THE ASPECTS OF ALLEGED SHARES SCAM, INVOLVEMENT OF SH RI MUKESH CHOKSI AND GROUP ENTITIES IN VARIOUS CASES. IN SIMI LAR SET OF FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED ADDITION MADE U/S. 68/69 O F THE IT ACT, 1961 QUA THE CLAIMS OF LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM CAP ITAL GAINS IN FOLLOWING CASES WHICH ARE RELIED ON BY LEARNED CIT( A): (A) SMT HAMIDA J. RATTONSEY VS. DCIT (B) ITO VS. RASILA N. GADA (C) SMT. DURGADEVI MUNDRA VS. ITO (D) SACHIN N. MORAKHIA VS. ITO (E) MUKESH R. MAROLIA VS. ACIT ((2006) 6 SOT 247) (F) CIT VS. MUKESH R. MAROLIA (BOMBAY HC) (G) ITO VS. TRUPTIC SHAH (H) ACIT VS. SHRIRAVINDRAKUMAR TOSHNIWAL (I) ITO VS. SMT. NAVNEET MEHRA 9.1 FOLLOWING THESE PRECEDENTS, THE ITAT AHMEDABA D BY FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS, DELETED SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE BY AUTHOR ITIES BELOW BY HOLDING THAT SHORT/LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OFFERED B Y ASSESSEE WERE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY SUCH PERSONS AND ADDING THE AMOUNTS OF SUCH GAINS U/S.68/69 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 : (A) ITO VS SHRI PRAKASHCHAND S. SANDH (B) ACIT VS MAHESH G. VAKIL (C) ACIT VS. HIMANI M. VAKIL (D) MANOJKUMAR SARAWANGI HUF VS. ACIT ITA NO.927/AHD/ 2014 SUMANDEVI P. AGRAWAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 8 - 9.2 THE PROPOSITION THAT, SHARE PURCHASES THROUGH BROKER MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FLOOR OF STOCK EXCHANGES OUTSIDE TH E FLOOR OF STOCK EXCHANGE HAS NOT BEEN HELD AS UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY AS HELD BY MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF MUKESH MORALIA ((2006) 6 SOT 24 7) AS UNDER: 10.3 PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OUTSIDE THE FLOOR OF STOCK EXCHANGE IS NOT AN UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY. OFF-MARKET TR ANSACTIONS ARE NOT ILLEGAL. IT IS ALWAYS POSSIBLE FOR THE PARTIES TO ENTER INTO TRANSACTIONS EVEN WITHOUT THE HELP OF BROKERS. THER EFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS REPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE QUITE SHAM ON THE LEGAL PROPOSITION ARRIVAL AT BY THE CIT(A) THAT OFF-MARKET TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE. T HE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE WITH THE HELP OF PROFESSIONAL MEDIATORS WHO ARE EXPERTS IN OFF-MARKE T TRANSACTIONS. 10.4 WHEN THE TRANSACTIONS WERE OFF-MARKET TRANSACT IONS, THERE IS NO RELEVANCE IN SEEKING DETAILS OF SHARE TRANSAC TIONS FROM STOCK EXCHANGES. SUCH ATTEMPTS WOULD BE FUTILE. STO CK EXCHANGES CANNOT GIVE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS ENTER ED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES OUTSIDE THEIR FLOOR. THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ON THE COMMUNICAT IONS RECEIVED FROM THE STOCK EXCHANGES THAT THE PARTICUL ARS OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THEIR RECORDS, IS OUT OF PLACE. THERE IS NO EVIDENT IAL VALUE FOR SUCH RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. TH E ASSESSEE HAD MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE N OT CONCLUDED ON THE FLOOR OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE. THE MATTER BEIN G SO, THERE IS NO PROBATIVE VALUE FOR THE NEGATIVE REPLIES SOLICIT ED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FROM THE RESPECTIVE STOCK EXCHA NGES. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MATERIALS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FROM THE STOCK EXCHANGES ARE NO T VALID TO DISPEL OR DISBELIEVE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSE E. 9.3 THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI M UKESH MORALIA HAS BEEN UPHELD AND CONFIRMED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO.456 OF 2007. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF FOREGOING, TH E SHARES PURCHASED THROUGH OFF-MARKET TRADE THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED NON-GENUINE IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE PURCHASES ARE ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT ITA NO.927/AHD/ 2014 SUMANDEVI P. AGRAWAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 9 - IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE PURCHASES ARE ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT IN PRECEDING YEAR BY TWO ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAME YEAR AND THE PAYMENTS OF PURCHASES AND SALES ARE EFFECTED BY A/C PAYEE CH EQUES. 9.4 FURTHER IN THE CASE OF SMT. JAYA VINEET AGARWAL FOR A.Y.2004-05, LEARNED CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD VIDE ITS APPEAL ORDER NO.CIT(A)- XI/437/ACIL CIR.6(5)/11-12 DATED 07/05/2012, ON SIM ILAR FACTS, HAS ALSO DELETED ADDITION U/S.69 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATING TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MUK ESH CHOKSI. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. THE PARTIES TO SHARE TRANSACTIONS AND FACTS BEING SIMILAR, LEARNED CIT(A ) HAS TAKEN A CORRECT VIEW IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS. 9.5 LEARNED AO, THOUGH CONFIRMED THE SALE OF RS.30, 000/- SHARES OF NEPTUNE SECURITIES PVT. LTD., HOWEVER FOR PART OF 2 0,000 SALE OF SHARES HELD TO BE NON-GENUINE AND RS.13,17,873/- WERE ADDE D U/S.68 ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. IT LEADS TO A CONTRADICTION AN D DESPITE THE FACTS THAT BSE HAS CONFIRMED TRANSACTION OF 30,000/- SHARES. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY INQUIRY FROM VIMLA EXIM PVT. LTD. WHO IS AN UND ISPUTEDLY A MEMBER OF AHMEDABAD STOCK EXCHANGE NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CA N BE DRAWN. 9.6 IN VIEW OF THESE GLARING FACTS, THE ASSESSMENT OF SMT. JAYA AGRAWAL AND THE FACT THAT THE RELEVANT PURCHASES FO R A.Y.2004-05 HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE GENUINE, WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THESE ADDITIONS. ON THE ISSUES O F SHRI CHOKSI, MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. AND GOLDSTAR FINVEST PVT. LTD., A CATENA OF JUDGMENTS FROM ITAT, MUMBAI AND AHMEDABAD IS AVA ILABLE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH VIEW ALSO STANDS CONFIRMED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI MUKESH MORALIA. RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES AS MENTIONED ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). REVEN UES GROUND STANDS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL ASSESSE ES CO, BOTH ARE DISMISSED. 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE SAID ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE AUT HORITIES TO DEEM ITA NO.927/AHD/ 2014 SUMANDEVI P. AGRAWAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 10 - RS.13,64,250/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND ASSESS ING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.13,55,220 /- AS AGAINST THE ASSESSED INCOME DETERMINED AT RS.16,12,050/-. THERE FORE, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28/06/2017 SD/- SD/- ( ) 4 5 ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 28/06/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'#$ %$' # COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 67- + 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. + 8- 4!5 / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD. 5. 9:;-67 !.!672 ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<=, # GUARD FILE. & ' / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// (/' )* ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY