TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 837
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pital gain (LTCG) on sale of shares of M/s Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd and claimed the same as exempt. There was a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act undertaken on 18/1/2007 in the premises of the appellant including his residences. Consequent to the said search operations, it came to light that the transaction of purchase of the above said shares was carried through M/s DPS Shares & Securities P Ltd. However the Director of above said share broker company namely Shri Sujal C. Shah, in his statement u/s 131 of the act recorded on 18-01-2007 confessed that it did not actually purchase the shares of M/s Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd, but provided only accommodation bills. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer again summoned another the director of M/s DPS shares & securities P Ltd namely shri Pratik C. Shah on 18.11.2008 and recorded his statement, wherein the said director also confirmed the fact of providing only accommodation bills in the shares of M/s Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) proposed to assess the Long term Capital gain as income of the assessee. The assessee sough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Director of the said M/s.DPS Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd. The contention of the Ld A.R has been that the above said share broking firm has not accounted the share transactions carried on by the assessee and hence, in order to suit its convenience, the director of the above said company has stated the transactions of purchase to be bogus transactions. The Ld A.R has further placed reliance on the decision rendered by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in I.T.A. No.6747/Mum/2010 for AY 2007-08 in the case of "Smt.Rooplata Jain vs. ACIT" decided on 8.4.2015. On the contrary, the Ld D.R placed strong reliance on the orders of tax authorities. 6. We have considered the rival contentions. We have also perused the decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of "Smt.Rooplata Jain vs. ACIT" (Supra), wherein, the Tribunal has considered the identical issues of purchase and sale of shares of M/s Robinson Worldwide Trade Ltd and has observed that the evidences furnished by the assessee with regard to the purchase and sale of shares should have been discreetly examined and then a holistic view of the matter should have been taken by the tax authorities. The Tribunal in the said case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal, we set aside the order of Ld CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the AO to decide the same a fresh in the light of the directions given by the Tribunal in the case of "Smt.Rooplata Jain vs. ACIT" (Supra). The appeal of the assessee is therefore allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.6770/M/2010 for A.Y. 2006-07. 8. Since the facts and issues under consideration are identical for this year also, hence, in view of our discussion of the matter as above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the year under consideration is also set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for decision a fresh as per the directions given above for A.Y. 2005-06. ITA No.6771/M/2011 for 2007-08 9. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the additions made by the AO as unexplained investments in relation to jewellery found during the search action. 10. During the course of the search operation u/s 132 of the Act, total jewellery weighing 1798 gms was found from the premises of the assessee. The gold content in diamond set was reported by the assessee at 181 gms and the remaining gold ornaments and jewellery weigh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound valuing to Rs. 24,75,237/-, jewellery valuing to Rs. 7,59,950/- only could be treated as explained. Jewellery valuing to Rs. 17,15,287/- remained unexplained. He accordingly added the said amount into the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the addition made by the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 13. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that apart from the jewellery treated by the AO as explained ,the assessee was entitled to further relief of 160gms. of jewellery as declared by the assessee during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings for A.Y. 1998-99. He accordingly granted relief to the assessee pertaining to 160 gms of jewellery @ Rs. 774/- per gram as adopted by the Assessing Officer calculated at Rs. 1,23,840/-. He accordingly reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer to Rs. 15,91,447/- . Aggreived by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has come in appeal before us. 14. We have heard the rival contentions. As per the CBDT circular No.1916 dated 11.5.1994, the gold jewellery and ornaments to the extent of 500 gms per married lady, 250 gms per unmarried lady and 100 gms per male member of the family need not be seized. The family of the as....