IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: CIRCUIT BENCH : RANCHI [BEFORE HONBLE S/SHRI N. S. SAINI, AM AND GEORGE M ATHAN, JM] IT (SS) A NO.02/RAN/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 TRILOCHAN KAUR, SALUJA HOUSE, NETAJI CHOWK, BHANDARIDIH, GIRIDIH 815301 PAN: AEMPK 2641F VS THE ASS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DHANBAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI K. N. PRASAH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI DEEPAK ROUSHAN, SR. SC DATE OF HEARING: 04-11-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04-11-2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), DHANBAD, JHARKHAND IN APPEAL NO.34 0/DHN/2011-12 DATED 29-10-2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. SHRI K. N. PRASAD, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI DEEPAK ROUSHAN, SR. SC REPRESENTE D ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THERE WA S A SEARCH ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16-09-2009. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29-12-2011 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT; THE AO HAD BROUGHT TO TAX THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON IN RESPECT OF SALE IT (SS) A NO. 02/R/2013 (AY: 2008-09) 2 OF SHARES OF ESSAR OIL WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS LI ABLE FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT AS THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE OF HAVING PAID THE SECURITY T RANSACTION TAX (STT), THE AO DID NOT GRANT THE ASSESSEE THE BENEF IT OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR DREW OUR ATTENTIO N TO PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS ALSO PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH W ERE THE COPIES OF THE TRANSACTION AS PER THE STOCK STATEMENT ALONG WI TH THE STT REPORT AS PER THE FORM NO.10DB IN PROOF OF THE PAYMENT OF STT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) MAY BE DELETED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE EVID ENCE OF PAYMENT OF STT WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE BILLS OF SALE OF TH E SHARES NOR WAS SUCH EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE WA S RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY OF THE EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT OF STT, OR THE TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF TH E SALE OF SHARES OF ESSAR OIL BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HAS ONLY NOW BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN THI S APPEAL MUST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS C ASE AND ACCORDINGLY, WE DO SO. IT (SS) A NO. 02/R/2013 (AY: 2008-09) 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CLOSE OF HEARING ON 04 - 11 - 2015. SD/- SD/- ( N .S. SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 04-11-2015 L LL LK DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS K DEKA/SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - 5. THE DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFTS ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 04 .11.15 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 04.11.15 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 04.11.15 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPR OVED BY SECOND MEMBER 04 .11.15 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 04.11.15 S R.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04.11.15 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ` 04.11.15 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER