TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 600
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case? However, on hearing counsel for the parties we feel that the actual question pertains to the Tribunal rendering a decision contrary to the record. Consequently, we reframe the question as under :- Whether the impugned order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal affirming the deletion of a sum of Rs.1,51,27,450/- by the CIT(Appeals) on account of long term capital gains, is not contrary to the record and/or perverse?" 2. The facts of the case are that in respect of the assessment year 2006-07, 48,100 shares of R.S.Builtwell Pvt. Ltd. were sold by the assessee to M/s Samiah International Builders Pvt. Ltd., Mr Jamil A. Khan and Ms Tabassum Jamil. The apparent consideration for the transfer of these shares was shown as Rs.125/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the tax amount on the surrender of Rs.10 crores made by him. This was followed by a letter, the contents of which read as under :- "We have surrendered an additional income of Rs.10 crores subject to the non-initiation of any penal action on dated 15.1.2008 during the course of survey proceedings but due to mental pressure on the date, we have written current financial year instead of relevant financial year regarding the period to which the surrender related. Moreover, on the day of survey we have not gone through the seized documents and now after going through the seized documents, we affirm that we have surrendered an additional income of Rs.10 crores subject to the non-initiation of any penal action on dated 15.1.2008 during the cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per share. According to this calculation the value per share was computed at Rs.439.50. Since the apparent consideration was only Rs.125 per share, it was deduced that the remaining consideration of Rs.314.50 per share was paid in cash. On the basis of this, the capital gains in the hands of the respondent-assessee for sale of 48,100 shares was assessed at Rs.2,11,39,950/- which led to an addition of Rs.1,51,27,450/-. 4. The assessment was completed on the above basis. 5. The respondent-assessee being aggrieved by the said assessment, preferred an appeal before CIT (Appeals) who deleted the said addition of Rs.1,51,27,450/-. The CIT(Appeals) was impressed by the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings the respondent-assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....val contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find that during the assessment proceedings in this case assessee has filed before the affidavit of the buyers and the income tax return of the buyers and Valuation Report of independent valuer in support of the price of shares. The Assessing Officer has not pointed out any defect or deficiency in any of them. Assessing officer made the addition on the basis of statement of Shri Jamil A. Khan, but it is noted that Sh. Jamil A. Khan himself confirmed to the Assessing Officer by filing an affidavit that no cash payment was made to the assessee for the purchase of shares. The Assessing Officer has not brought on record the author of documents impounded during the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also the Tribunal have founded their conclusion essentially on the premise that the respondent-assessee had requested for an opportunity of cross-examining Jamil A. Khan and that such an opportunity had not been provided by the assessing officer. However, from the record we do not find that there was any such request made by the respondent-assessee for cross-examining Jamil A. Khan. In fact, we find it rather intriguing as to why would the respondent-assessee request for cross-examining Jamil A. Khan when the respondent-assessee himself had furnished affidavits to Jamil A. Khan in support of his case. The observations of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as also of the Tribunal that despite t....