Tejal Mahendrabhai Shah, Surat V. ITO, Ward-3, Palanpur

MA 58/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application by Tejal Mahendrabhai Shah against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which pertained to the assessment year 2015-16. The application sought to correct alleged factual errors in the Tribunal's earlier decision regarding the computation of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and the handling of share transactions. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had overlooked certain facts and misrepresented others, particularly concerning the purchase price of shares and the mode of payment. The Departmental Representative contended that the Tribunal had accurately represented the facts and that the application was merely a request for a review, which is not allowed under the law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300014 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 13; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A . N o. 58 /A h d /2 0 2 3 ( I n I TA N o . 5 10 /A h d/2 0 1 8) ( A s se ss m e nt Y e a r : 20 15- 16 ) Te j al M a h e n dr a b ha i S ha h, B - 70 1 , V e e r B h a dr a R es id e n c y, O p p. C o ll eg e, N r . S w at i Pe tr ol Pu mp , U m r a, S u a r t - 39 5 0 07 Vs . I T O War d - 3 , Pa la n p u r [ P A N N o . AF Q P S 0 8 2 8 B ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri S. N. Divatia, A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R. D a t e of H ea r i ng 14.07.2023 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 19.07.2023 O R D E R This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee in respect of the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The Ld. A.R. submitted that there are certain factual error in the present order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Tribunal. The respective mistakes are pointed out in the Miscellaneous Applications in Para 4 (Para 4.1 to Para 4.3) following is extracted of the same para:- “4. The applicant submits with utmost respect that there is a mistake apparent on record in respect of both the aforesaid reasons as under :- 4.1 So far as the observation relating to purchase price are concerned, the applicant has mentioned the purchase price of Rs. 14,300/- in the computation of LTCG to the ITR (see page 4 of PB). The share account (Roongta) for FY 2014-15 given at page-9 also show as purchase cost Rs.14,300/- by way of old balance. The purchase contract note at page 10 also show the purchase cost at Rs. 14,300/- in respect of 1300 shares purchased by the applicant. The ledger account from books of the share broker - Roongta Rising Stock Pvt Ltd. also show the purchase price at Rs.14,300/- at page 11. M.A No.58/Ahd/2023 (in ITA No. 510/Ahd/2019) Tejal Mahendrabhai Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year– 2015-16 - 2 - 4.2 So far as the observation relating to purchase price paid in cash is concerned, the extract from the passbook of Bank of India SB A/c. 1601 of the appellant given at Page 25 show the payment by cheque no.23186 cleared on 04.05.2012 for Rs. 14,300/- with remark "Roongta". Even the ledger account from books of the said broker how that the purchase price was paid by cheque (page 11). The reply given by the applicant vide letter dated 21.05.2016 also record this fact at para-2(d) reproduced at page-7 of the assessment order. Therefore, the observations made by the Hon'ble Tribunal of purchase price paid in cash are factually erroneous. 4.3 It is submitted with utmost respect that the Hon'ble Tribunal failed to take into consideration important aspect of the matter the applicant had originally purchased 1300 shares and later on 9100 bonus shares were received so her holding was 10400 shares and it was subsequently divided into equity share of Rs. 1 each as a result the total shareholding became 104000 shares which is evident from the demat account with Roongta Rising Stock Pvt Ltd, given at page 12 and 13 of the PB. The said demat account also show that 9100 shares were credited on 19.02.2013 whereas 1300 shares mere pending demat on 22.08.2012 and later on transferred on 30.08.2012.” 3. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that the correct fats were not taken into account by the Tribunal, therefore, order dated 17.03.2023 be recalled. 4. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee is seeking review and the same should not be entertained as the Tribunal has given the factual aspect correctly. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the Tribunal. 5. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. The Ld. A.R’s. contention that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration important aspect of the matter that the assessee had originally purchased 1300 shares and later on 9100 bonus shares were received so her holding was 10400 shares and it was subsequently divided into equity share of Rs. 1 each as a result of total share holding became 104000 shares which is evident from the demat account with M.A No.58/Ahd/2023 (in ITA No. 510/Ahd/2019) Tejal Mahendrabhai Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year– 2015-16 - 3 - Roongta Rising Stock Pvt. Ltd. given at Page 12 and 13 of the Paper Book. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that the said demat account also show that 9100 shares were credited on 19.02.2013 whereas 1300 shares were pending demat on 22.08.2012 and later on transferred on 30.08.2012. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that there was a factual error by the Tribunal that the said payment was made in cash and not in cheque but on the contrary the assessee has given the details of pass book of Bank of India more particularly at Page 25 of the Paper Book thereby showing the payment by cheque claimed on 04.05.2012 for Rs. 14,300/- with remark “Roongta”. It is pertinent to note that the finding given by the Tribunal in Para 7 of the assessment order stated that the assessee has made the transaction in cash appears to be incorrect. In fact, the relevant contractual notes which has been produced by the assessee and thus, notes are not reflecting the price of each scrip at the time of purchase as well as the assessee when sold the scrip between 01.04.2014 to 30.03.2015 on which date the trade price per unit was 46.20 was also not reflected in the details given by the assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal. In fact, as regards, the pleas of bonus shares the same was taken into account while passing the order and the Tribunal has categorically mentioned that shares were not transferred to the assessee’s demat account within 24 hours and thus, the assessee’s plea in respect of share in bill account of the broker is not correct. There was a finding that the shares were sold without getting the same in individual demat account and the name of the broker was also promptly reflected on the said issue involved which is crucial in a peculiar case of the assessee. Thus, there M.A No.58/Ahd/2023 (in ITA No. 510/Ahd/2019) Tejal Mahendrabhai Shah vs. ITO Asst.Year– 2015-16 - 4 - is no factual error as such in the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Tribunal. In fact, the contentions taken by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application has been taken into account by the Tribunal and after taking cognizance of all the relevant material before the Tribunal at the time of hearing of the appeal, the appeal was decided as per law / income tax statute. There is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. The assessee is seeking review of the order which is not permissible under Section 254 of the Act. The Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. 6. In result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 19/07/2023 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 19/07/2023 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad