TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch the unaccounted money of the assessee has converted into accounted money in the grab of long term capital gain arising on account of purchases and sale of shares. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law and in circumstances of the case in not appreciating the Supreme Court decision in the following cases - Macdowells and Company Ltd Vs ITO 154 ITR 148, CIT Vs. Sri Meenakshi Mills Ltd. 63 ITR 609, CIT Vs Durgaprasad More - 82 ITR 540 and Juggilal Kamapat Vs CIT 73 ITR 702 (SC). 5. The learned CIT(A) has erred earred in holding the details filed before the A.O. proved the genuineness of the transaction without verifying the details himself as there is no finding in his order that the details filed were duly verified by him and found to be correct. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred earred in not appreciating the fact that after verification and from copy of invoices of expenditure found from the premises of the assessee, it is quite clear that the assesee is having a lavish life style and household drawing shown by the assessee were incredibly low. 7.The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(Appeals) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restore....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shares were sold through different registered share brokers of various stock exchanges and that she was entitled to benefits of LTCG, whereas as per the AO, same were bogus transactions. He treated the entire sale proceeds as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. For arriving at this conclusion the AO relied upon the statement of Shri Manoj Agarwal Proprietor of M/s Fridends Portfolio (P) Ltd., Delhi recorded on oath by the DDIT(Inv.)Unit-II(4) Delhi, inquiries conducted through Investigation Wing and disclosure made by the group. According to the AO, from the statement of Shri Manoj Agarwal (dtd. 8.1.2001) it transpired that the appellant had systematically routed her unaccounted cash generated out of unaccounted sale of Dilbagh Rai Gutkha group in the grab of LTCG by way of a series of entries of sales and purchases of penny stocks. AO held that enquiry letters issued u/s. 133(6) of the Act to various share holders through whom the appellant had carried out her share transactions remained unattended. The AO also relied upon the report of DDIT(Inv) Unit IV(5) Kolkata. In the said report the DDIT had noted that the shares of M/s Gautam Resources Ltd., transacted by various ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO with respect to these concerns and that the payment received against the sale of shares from the broker through A/c Payee cheques were duly confirmed by the said broker i.e. M/s Stanly Securities Ltd. He held that the appellant was only an investor being shareholder of the respective companies, that the appellant had never been a Director or a person having controlling stake in the companies involved, that there was no evidence available on record to establish that the share prices were managed or rigged or manipulated by the appellant. He also held that all the companies in which the appellant had made investment were registered with the Registrar of Companies, that they were not found to be bogus entities, that genuineness of purchase and sale of shares of all these companies was established and accordingly the appellant had discharged her onus, that the AO has not brought on record any material in support of his allegation that the transactions were not genuine. 2.3.1. FAA held that the CIT(A)-I, Kanpur had discussed the facts of the case,appellant's arguments and submissions in details and thereafter had recorded his findings with regard to the appeals filed by the other m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tances were identical in all the group cases matter should be decided in light of the decisions of 2.5. We have considered the submissions and arguments of the AR as well as the facts and findings of the AO as mentioned in the assessment order. We find that purchase of shares, sold during the respective assessment years covered u/s. 153A of the Act, was already disclosed by the assessee in her regular books of account as well as in the returns of income filed. AO made the addition mainly relying on the statement of a broker i.e. Shri Manoj Agarwal, recorded by the DDIT(Inv.),Delhi. We find that no cognizance of the said statements of Sh. Agarwal was taken immediately after the recording of the statement for the completion of various assessments of the appellant. It is also found that no cross-examination of the said broker was provided by the AO to the assessee, in spite of the fact that such a request was made by the assessee. In these circumstances and on account of the aforesaid facts of the case, we find ourselves completely in agreement with the decision of the FAA, so far as the issue under consideration is concerned. From the facts, it is evident that the appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry letter received from the company on allotment / transfer of the share in the assessee's name. In the said order, name and address of the company was there. The Assessing Officer also accepted the date of transfer of shares in assessee's name which could have been known only after examining the share transfer letter. If the Assessing Officer was having any doubt, he could have enquired from the said company but no such efforts has been made. Moreover, the transaction was relating to tile earlier year which had been accepted by the Department in the assessment of the said year to there was no occasion to doubt the purchase for the year under consideration. As regards to the sale of the shares is concerned, it is noticed that the original assessment of the assessee was framed under section 143(3) of the I. T.Act- 1961 vide order dated 29.03.2004 and while framing the assessment the sale had been accepted since no eyebrow was raised regarding the genuineness of the sale of the shares. It is also not in dispute that the assessee was neither the Director nor a person having control on the company, so it cannot be presumed that the sale prices were manipulated by the assessee. The asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppears that the Assessing Officer, only on the basis of the statement of Shri R.N. Agarwal, the share broker, which, was recorded at the back of the assessee by the Officer other than the Assessing Officer, presumed that the sale transaction was not a genuine transaction. In our opinion, this action of the Assessing Officer in doubting the transaction was not justified particularly when in the transfer letter of the company the names and addresses of the each person duly been mentioned and while framing the original assessment on 29.03.2004, those documents were accepted by the then Assessing Officer and nothing adverse has been stated about those documents in the original assessment order. In our opinion, when the Assessing Officer was relying on the statement of a person, the onus was on the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of that person for cross examination of the assessee but no such opportunity was provided in spite of the fact that the assessee requested to cross examine the share broker who earlier had confirmed but later on contradicted the confirmatory letter. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....family members/ HUF for the assessment years under consideration - AY Drawings by Praveen Kumar Arora (Ind.) Drawings by Assessee Drawings by Praveen Kumar Arora (HUF.) Total 2000-01 2,58,438/- 2,40,000/- -- 4,98,438/- 2001-02 3,96,817/- 1,20,000/- -- 5,16,817/- 2002-03 1,98,899/- 1,70,000/- -- 3,68,899/- 2003-04 7,43,000/- 4,50,000/- -- 11,93,000/- 2004-05 6,11,250/- 3,60,878/- 60,348/- 10,32,476/- 2005-06 7,45,750/- 3,05,640/- -- 10,51,390/- 2006-07 6,04,700/- 3,00,000/- -- 9,04,700/- Total 35,58,854/- 19,46,518/- 60,348/- 55,65,720/- 3.2. Before us, DR relied on the order of the AO where as AR supported the order of the FAA. He submitted that the addition made by the AO were purely on ad hoc basis that the appellant was having a family of three persons for the A.Yrs.2000-Ol and 2001-02 and four persons for the A.Yrs.2002-03 to 2006-07 consisting of herself, her husband and two minor children, that all the expenses relating to purchase of household gadgets, maintenance of properties, expenditure incurred on traveling, servants, electricity, water and conveyance were met out of the withdrawals shown in the respective hands of various m....