TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces filed as well as the replies by the assessee has come to the following conclusions:- (a) For the reasons given in his order, it is not free from doubt that the sale of shares has resulted in short term capital gains; (b) The assessee could not prove that the asset (shares) transferred, were long term capital assets. (c ) The transaction of sale of the shares and consequent earning of capital gains is not a genuine transaction; (d) The assessee does not satisfy the provisions of S.54 F for the reason that the assessee was having more than one residential house property i.e. one at Gadaipur and another at Fatehpur Beri, which were reflected in the balance sheet for the AY 2007-08. The reasons are given from point nos. 1 to 9 of the assessment order, at pages 8 and 9. 3. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The First Appellate authority held that the gain in question was a long term capital gain, after admitting additional evidences and sending the same to the AO for his report. The reasons on which he held so are at pages 14 to 18 of his order. Regarding the observations of the AO that the assessee was owner of more than one residential house, the Ld.CIT(A) for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g no. 80071, Payment Receipt dated 28/06/2005 bearing no. 1834088, Payment Receipt dated 26/05/2006 bearing no. 0218677. All the documents are in the name of Prem Nath Nagpal - father of the Assessee. 5.1. The admission of these documents is being sought as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. It was submitted that admission of these documents are important as they assist the Hon'ble Bench to do 'Substantial Justice' in the matter. It is submitted that technical considerations should be brushed aside and the evidence admitted as held in Collector of Land Acquisition V Mst. Katiji 167 ITR 471 Sc. The assessee sought to demonstrate how these documents will assist the Hon'ble Bench to do substantial justice as follows. (a) The construction plan being submitted as additional evidence conclusively proves that construction has been done only on Khasra no.76 and would prove conclusively that the assessee did not own any part of the farm house at Village Gadaipur, but only owned a part of the agriculture land, and, therefore correctly claimed deduction u/s 54 F of the Act. (b)The other documents such as bills & receipts of House Tax prove conclusively that house tax was being paid only by Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reas it was offered to tax under the head "income from house property"; (f) That the claim of the assessee that a house exists only on the adjoining land owned by the father of the assessee is not proved. (g) That the agreement of sale entered into by the assessee that his father was not examined by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). (h) That the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noticed the fact that the assessee has admitted that he is a co-owner of the property at Gadaipur but she did not agree and ignored the claim. Contrarily she relied on the sale deed and additional evidence in the form of Khasra gidwari. The CIT(A) wrongly accepted the claim of the assessee relying on Khasra Gidwari which showed that the residential house is on the portion of the land owned by the father i.e. khasra no.76 and not on the portion possessed by the assessee by ignoring the remand report. (i) In the rental agreement with Pepsico, no separate rent for land and building was mentioned for distribution (j) The agreement with Modi Xerox was not required to be produced when the same is not mentioned in the affidavit of Mr.Prem Nagpal. Reliance was placed on the assessment order as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred to page 30 of the paper book and submitted that, after giving 60% advance, the purchasers introduced Directors to the assessee company to safe guard their interest. After giving the balance 40% and getting the shares transferred in their name, the purchasers appointed other Directors and the Directors belonging to the assessee group have resigned thus handing over the company. Regarding purchases of shares, he submitted that they were purchased shortly after allotment and for the same price and were duly reflected in the returns filed with the ROC as well as in the accounts of the assessee. He vehemently contended that the share price of Rs.7500/- per share was not disputed at all by the Assessing Officer and that in fact the assessee has paid Rs.62 lakhs as capital gain tax, on such sale price, after claiming part of the capital gain tax as exempt u/s 54F and submitted that had the assessee planned to reduce the tax liability, then the share price would not have been put at this rate, which was genuine transaction. On the other aspects he relied heavily on the order of the CIT(A) . 8.1. On the issue of being owner of the farm house at Gadaipur he drew the attention of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circumstances of the case and perusal of papers on record and case laws cited, we hold as follows. 10. The first issue that has to be adjudicated is whether the shares transferred were held for a period fo 12 months or not. The assessee had purchased 5000 equity shares of Rs.10 each in "M/s Valley View Probuild Pvt.Ltd." from Mr.Shyam Kumar Bagga on 25th October, 2005. The distinctive numbers of the shares are 5001 to 10,000. Copy of the share transfer form and the share certificate with appropriate entries of transfer were produced before the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Mr.Shyam Kumar Bagga is an income tax assessee. Copies of the annual returns filed with the ROC are placed at pages 18 to 35 of the paper book for the AGM held on 30.09.2006. In this annual return the details of the shares transferred from Kr Bagga to Mr.Kapil Nagpal is recorded. Copy of the cash receipt issued by Bagga is also placed on record. These are all contemporaneous documents and the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has in our view correctly appreciated the facts based on records and documents. 10.1. In our considered view, the assessee has discharged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is wrong to say that this is not a genuine transaction. The various contentions raised by the Ld.D.R., in our view, are nothing but conjectures and surmises. His statement in his written submission that the whole process of share transfer does not inspire confidence is without any evidence. Except for doubting the various documents and finding fault with the same, no positive evidence is collected by the Revenue. Non production of share transfer register, does not lead to a conclusion that there is no transfer of shares at all specifically when copy of the returns filed with the ROC are being produced by the assessee along with receipts by way of cheques, payment of capital gain tax etc. Names and addresses of the witnesses not being clearly mentioned or the fact that stamps are insufficiently or wrongly fixed, are in our view not grounds to hold that the transfer of shares has not taken place. In our considered opinion the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has correctly recorded the factual situation. She rightly held that transfer of shares complete on delivery bgy relying on the facts of this case and on a number of judicial precedents. The Ld.D.R. could not controvert the factual findings of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dential property. The assessee on facts, is not a fractional owner of the said building as alleged by the Ld.D.R. We uphold this factual finding of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 15. The Ld.D.R. has raised number of questions on the additional evidences admitted by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). No specific ground has been raised by the A.O. on this issue. In the absence of the Assessing Officer raising the grounds of appeal in this regard, the question of adjudicating the arguments of the D.R. does not arise for the reason that the issue is not before us. The A.O. has not disputed the decision of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appelas) to admit additional evidence. 16. In our opinion the First Appellate Authority was right in her factual conclusions where at pages 19 and 20 para 1 to 5 wherein she held as follows. "1. This property was purchased by the appellant in financial year 1995-96 for Rs.60,000/- and the same was shown as agricultural land in the balance sheet as on 31.3.96. There is no improvement on this property since it is being shown at the same value till financial year ending on 31.3.2007. It is also not the case of Assessing Office....