TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (6) TMI 266
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 being unexplained credits in assessee's bank account." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessment in this case was completed by the AO under s. 143(3) r/w s. 147 of the IT Act, The said assessment was reopened on receipt of intimation from the DDI (Inv.) stating that the long-term capital gain declared by the assessee was false and that the transaction was not genuine and a cheque had been taken by the beneficiary, i.e., the assessee by paying cash amount equivalent to the cheque amount and the premium thereon. The AO recorded reasons and issued notice under s. 148 of the Act. The assessee filed return in response to the notice declaring the same income as declared in the original return. During the course of reassessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....act that the company was not available at the given address cannot conclusively prove that the company was non-existent. Further, Shri Praveen Mittal was a witness of the AO and as such onus was upon him and non-compliance of Shri Praveen Mittal to the summons issued by the AO could not be held against the assessee. The assessee had placed before the AO all necessary bills and evidence to establish the transaction. It was incumbent upon the AO to prove that the material and evidence relied upon by the appellant was bogus. The mere reliance on the statement of the third parties who were never examined by the AO could not be held to be sufficient to come to a finding that the long-term capital gain shown by the assessee was representing undis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of shares. As regards sale of shares, the same has been sold on 27th March, 1995. The shares have been sold through a broker who is a registered member of the stock exchange and at the period (price) prevalent on that day. These documents were submitted before the AO and nothing adverse has been said about these documents in the assessment order. The AO has merely relied upon the statement of third parties which was recorded by the AO himself. Moreover, that statement does not directly implicate the assessee. It has been argued that the said statement could not be made the basis for assessment. In support, reliance has been placed on the ratio of decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Eveready Industries India Ltd. vs. J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been made. There is no material and evidence on record to support the allegation of the AO that the investment made in the company and the company in which investment was made was not genuine. The contention of the AO that the company was not traceable is factually incorrect in as much as the company was a registered company with the Registrar of Companies. The shareholder cannot enforce the attendance of the company in which investment has been made in the capacity of a shareholder. As regards the statement of Mr. Praveen Mittal, the learned Authorised Representative argued that Mr. Praveen Mittal was not the witness of the appellant but was that of the Revenue. His non-appearance in the assessment proceedings cannot be interpreted against....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee who has furnished all documents to support his claim. The AO, it appears, has made out a presumption that the assessee has paid cash and purchased the cheque, but no material has been brought on record to substantiate this allegation. This is a fact that the assessee was simply a shareholder of the company. He has made investment in the company in which he was neither a director nor was he in control of the company. He has made investment in shares of which necessary evidence have been filed. Purchase of shares in the asst. yr. 1993-94 have been reflected by the assessee and also accepted by the Revenue. The sale of shares is through a broker. The rate at which the shares were purchased and sold is also not in dispute. The payment....