TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 441
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessee filed the return of income declaring Rs.6,16,070/- in respect of AY 2007-08. In this, she had claimed Rs.70,77,375/- as long term capital gain and, therefore, exempt under Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer by his order holds that the assessee carried on the business of shares and securities and had a closing stock of shares valued at Rs.2,19,15,145/- in that business and, consequently, a sum of Rs.70,77,375/- was in reality business income. The CIT (A) on being approached by the assessee reversed the findings of the AO after analyzing the nature of the share holdings, dates of purchase of shares, the respective dates on which they were sold as well as the sale price. The CIT (A) also noticed the law app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailable on record. On a consideration of the same, we are of the view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and considering the case law relied upon by the Revenue and the assessee and considered by the AO and the CIT (A), the departmental ground deserves to be dismissed. The arguments based on the suspicion of the Ld. CIT DR which have been orally canvassed and also by way of write-up filed subsequently it is seen stands fully addressed by the assessee in the impugned order itself. The same are found reproduced in the order and have been taken into consideration by the CIT (A) while passing his order. These arguments addressing the departmental suspicion are reproduced in page 4, 5 & 6 of the impugned order and have also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the assessee has shown separate investment in her balance sheet has been taken into consideration by the CIT (A) who has considered the copies of the balance sheet for the last 7 years which was found to support the facts that the assessee has regularly been maintaining two separate portfolios which finding is recorded in para 3.3.1 of the impugned order, nothing has been placed before us by the Revenue to upset this finding. It is also seen that the CIT (A) records that he has personally verified the position for the last 7 years from the P&L A/c of the assessee as well as the inventory of closing stock and then has come to a finding that neither during the year nor in the earlier years the assessee has ever traded in those shares which ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the said shares i.e. OASASCIN was shown for the first time in the balance sheet as it was purchased admittedly on 08.01.2005 has accepted the position and thereby accepted the position of two separate portfolios. Similarly the factum of maintaining two separate portfolio was found to be correct even on a perusal of the position emanating from the 143(3) order of the AO in 2002-03 assessment year. These findings found recorded in para 3.3.2 have not been assailed by the Revenue. No evidence to the contrary upsetting these findings as incorrect finding has been placed before us. Similarly the holding period has also not been argued to be incorrect which is more than one and a half year or more. The reliance placed on the assumption of the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y to income tax proceedings canvassing that a settled position can be changed are also distinguishable as in order to come to the said conclusion in each and every case facts have to be referred to for consideration of the Courts/Tribunals in order to justify interference and change from the settled position by demonstrating that facts as originally considered in some stray year may have not been correctly presented and a different conclusion is legally justified on facts. In the facts of the present case as observed no fact has been brought on record by the Revenue to justify that the past position of the last 7 years taken into consideration by the CIT (A) to show that the assessee was maintaining two separate portfolios one where shares ....