TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mumbai dated 14.01.2011.The assessment in these cases have been framed vide assessment order dated 31.12.2007 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). We will first take up the appeal in ITA No 3028/Mum/2011(AY: 2002-03) in which the assessee has raised the following grounds:- "1) a. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law the Learned AO erred in treating the Long term capital gain on sale of shares at Rs. 15,06,271/- as income from Other Sources. b. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law the Learned CIT (A) while confirming the addition erred in holding that the entire sale proceeds of shares credited in the books of the Appellant at Rs. 15,84,736/on account of alleged capital gain chargeable to tax u/s 68 of the IT Act and consequently enhancing the addition from Rs. 15,06,2711- to Rs. 15,84,736/- . 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s.69C of the I.T Act at Rs. 78,4651 - being Unexplained expenditure incurred for purchase of shares. He failed to appreciate that the said shares were pur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 78,465/-made under section 69C by the learned CAT(A), being alleged unexplained expenditure on purchase of shares, without there being any incriminating material found during search on this issue at all. The appellant prays that since in the absence of any incriminating material found during search such addition under section 69C is outside the jurisdiction of the AO under section 153A this addition of Rs. 78,465 be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 79,237 made under section 69C by the learned AO, being alleged unexplained expenditure on payment of commission/service charges, without there being any incriminating material found during search on this issue at all. The appellant prays that since in the absence of any incriminating material found during search such addition under section 69C is outside the jurisdiction of the AO under section 153A, this addition of Rs. 79,237 be deleted. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or withdraw all or any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... long term capital gain of Rs. 15,06,271/- as income from other sources by holding the same as non genuine as no incriminating material was found during the course of search on this issue. The ld AR submitted that the return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 21.03.2003 declaring an income of Rs. 12,34,485/-. No notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued by the AO and the time period for issuing such notice under the statute was 12 months from 31st March 2003 meaning thereby the deadline for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was expired on 31st March 2004. Thus the return of income stands assessed and assessment attained finality. Thereafter search and seizure u/s 132 of the Act was conducted and carried out on 24.1.2006. The ld AR submitted that the income returned as per the original return attained finality as the assessment has attained finality on the date of search and the AO has no jurisdiction to assess the income which is not based on the search materials/incriminating materials found during the search. The AR referring to the provisions of section 153A of the Act submitted that the assessments which have attained finality could not be disturbed unless some i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich notice u/s 153A was issued but which are not pending and attained finality on the date of search cannot be disturbed by the AO unless some incriminating material in respect of the completed assessments were found during the search by the search team. In the case at hand, we find that the assessment was not pending on the date of search and no incriminating material qua long term capital gain of Rs. 15,06,271/-was found during search. We find merit in the arguments of the ld AR that AO has no jurisdiction in assessing the long term capital gain as income from other sources. In the case of All Cargo Logistics Ltd Dy.CIT (supra ) the special bench has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee which has also affirmed by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court. In the case of CIT V/s Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No.523 of 2013 with CIT V/s All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd in Income Tax Appeal No.1969 of 2013 dated 21.4.2015, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has decided the issue of section 153A in favour of assessee by holding as under( paras 21,22,23,31 and 37): "21. For properly appreciating the rival contentions, a ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner. Provided that such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set aside. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, (i) save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section. (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year." 22. A bare perusal thereof would indicate as to how a non obstante clause has been inserted and with a defined intent. One would find that in section 139 of the IT Act, the return of income is contemplated. These provisions fall in Chapter XIV entitled "Procedure For Assessment". Section 139 deals with return of income whereas section 140 states that such return has to be verified. Section 147 which also falls within this Chapter deals with income escaping as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition has to be made. 23. We are of the view that there is much substance in the contentions of Mr. Dastur that the provisions such as section 153A enabling assessment in case of search or requisition making specific reference to the provisions which enable carrying out of search or exercise of power of requisition that the assessment in furtherance thereof is contemplated. ....... 31. We, therefore, hold that the Special Bench's understanding of the legal provision is not perverse nor does it suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Special Bench in that regard held as under : "48. The provision under section 153A is applicable where a search or requisition is initiated after 31.5.2003. In such a case the AO is obliged to issue notice u/s 153A in respect of 6 preceding years, preceding the year in which search etc. has been initiated. Thereafter he has to assess or reassess the total income of these six years. It is obligatory on the part of the AO to assess or reassess total income of the six years as p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd seizure and the former deals with assessment in case of search etc, thus, the two are inextricably linked with each other. 49. Before proceeding further, we may now examine the provision contained in sub-section (2) of section 153, which has been dealt with by Ld. Counsel. It provides that if any assessment made under subsection (1) is annulled in appeal etc., then the abated assessment revives. However, if such annulment is further nullified, the assessment again abates. The case of the Ld. Counsel is that this provision further shows that completed assessments stand on a different footing from the pending assessments because appeals etc. proceedings continue to remain in force in case of completed assessments and their fate depends upon subsequent orders in appeal. On consideration of the provision and the submissions, we find that this provision also makes it clear that the abatement of pending proceedings is not of such permanent nature that they cease to exist for all times to come. The interpretation of the Ld. Counsel, though not specifically stated, would be that on annulment of the assessment made u/s 153(1), the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess the total inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to assess or reassess the total income of these six years. The pending proceedings shall abate. This means that out of six years, if any assessment or reassessment is pending on the date of initiation of the search, it shall abate. In other words pending proceedings will not be proceeded with thereafter. The assessment has now to be made u/s 153A (1)(b) and the first proviso. It also means that only one assessment will be made under the aforesaid provisions as the two proceedings i.e. assessment or reassessment proceedings and proceedings under this provision merge into one. If assessment made under sub- section (1) is annulled in appeal or other legal proceedings, then the abated assessment or reassessment shall revive. This means that the assessment or reassessment, which had abated, shall be made, for which extension of time has been provided under section 153B. 53. The question now is - what is the scope of assessment or reassessment of total income u/s 153A (1) (b) and the first proviso ? We are of the view that for answering this question, guidance will have to be sought from section 132(1). If any books of account or other documents relevant to the assessment had no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reference will have to be made to the income disclosed therein. However, the scope of enquiry, though not confined as held by the High Court of Karnataka, it essentially revolves around the search or the requisition under section 132A as the case may be. We do not find anything in these observations and reproduced above which would enable us to conclude that the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Murli Agro requires reconsideration or does not lay down a correct principle of law. We cannot, therefore, accede to the submissions of Mr. Pinto and revisit any of the conclusions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court." In the case of Atithi N Patel Vs ACIT(supra) the coordinate bench has held as under:- "4. As regards other years i.e. assessment years 2005-2006 & 2006- 2007, the assessment proceedings were still pending, and, hence, for the purpose of Section 153A, the assessment for these years will get abated. On these additional grounds, learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Special Bench in the case of M/s All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. Vs. DCIT, passed in ITA Nos.5108 to 5022 & 5059/M/2010, vide dated 06-07-2012 and drew our attention to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als found during the search and therefore the enhancement is also without jurisdiction u/s 153A. Accordingly the additional grounds no 1A and 1B raised by the assessee stand allowed in favour of the assessee and AO is directed accordingly. 9. The issues raised in additional ground no 2 and 3 are qua the additions of Rs. 78,465/- and Rs. 79,237/- respectively made u/s 69C of the Act by the AO as upheld by the CIT(A). 10. We find from the orders of AO as well as CIT(A) that these additions are not based upon the seized or incriminating material found during search proceedings on the assessee and therefore additions are beyond the scope of assessment u/s 153A. The additional ground no 3 and 4 are also allowed. 11. In view of the our findings given hereinabove , we are not going into the merits of the additions as discussed by the AO as well as by the CIT(A) as they become purely academic. ITA No 3029/Mum/2011 Assessment Year 2003-04. 12. The issues raised by the assessee in this appeal are identical to the ones raised by the assessee in ITA No.3028/M/2011(AY 2002-03) decided by us in favour of the assessee hereinabove. Therefore our findings in ITA No 3028/M/2011 would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....brief are that he assessee filed her return of income on 31.03.2005 declaring an income of Rs. 4,88,102/-. Thereafter a search u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on the assessee and other associated persons on 24.01.2006. During the course of search some jewellary of Rs. 9,58,090/- and cash Rs. 1,69,800/- were found whereas the jewellary worth Rs. 6,65,400/- was only seized. The search was conducted on the information that the assessee and other connected persons were engaged in obtaining fictitious entries of purchase of shares by back dated purchase bills which were bogus thereby receiving shares in physical forms and thereafter selling the same generating huge long term capital gain by manipulating the share transactions. Notice issued u/s 153A of the Act dated 13.09.2006 was served upon the assessee which was complied by the assessing by filing the return of income on 23.01.2007 declaring an income of Rs. 74,23,570/- comprising income from business , house property, capital gain and other sources. The assessee also declared long term capital gain on shares Rs. 69,35,295/- from the sale of shares of G Soft Tech Ltd and High Land Ltd. The shares of these companies were stated to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....remain not properly explained. Therefore, the proceeds credited in the books of the appellant on account of alleged capital gain as per particulars given below are chargeable to tax u/s.68 of the Ac S No AY Amount credited in the books of appellant (Rs.) 1 2002-03 Rs.15,84,736/- 2 2003-04 Rs.11,38,317/- 3 2004-05 RS.70,93,594/- 4 2005-06 Rs.49 ,83,050/- 5 2006-07 Rs.7,25,513/- Therefore, the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer as Income other sources are enhanced as under: S No AY Addition made by the AO Enhanced to 1 2002-03 Rs.15,06,271/- Rs.15,84,736/- 2 2003-04 Rs.10,88,547 Rs.11,38,317/- 3 2004-05 RS.69.35.295/- Rs.70,93,594/- 4 2005-06 Rs.49 ,99,180/- Rs.49,83,050/- 5 2006-07 Rs.6,54,961/- Rs.7,25,513/- Ld.AR was specifically confronted on the above proposition vide note sheet entry dated 4.10.2010. He has not furnished any objections so far. In view of the above, additions made by AO are enhanced as discussed above. Ground No.2 is therefore dismissed and the disputed additions are enhanced from Rs. 15,06,271/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome, capital account and balance sheet of assessee for AY 2003-04 placed at 1, 3 and 4 of PB. Similarly the details of sales and purchase of shares on which the assessee made speculative profits were filed at page no 68 with details of shares purchased, date of purchase and sale, quantity purchased and sold with all supportive bills and vouchers issued by the brokers copies of which were placed from page no 68 to 78 of PB. The ld AR also submitted that the said speculation income was also accepted by the AO as STCG while framing the assessment order for AY 2003-04 a copy of which is placed at page no 5 to 11 of PB. Similarly the other documentary evidences qua cash payment of Rs. 8,383/- ( page no 81), copies of share certificate ( page no 82 to 90) , confirmations from brokers qua purchase of shares (page no 97 to 100), copies of bills for sales of shares issued by SEB registered brokers (page no 62 to 66) and bank statements of the assessee in which the sales proceeds were deposited by account payee cheques (page no 91 to 96 of PB) were brought to our notice. The ld AR argued that all the above evidences and records were before the lower authorities and the lower authorities ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2003 Pushpanjali Floricuture w.e.f. 03.02.2003 High Land Ind Ltd w.e.f. 11.02.2004 Transnation Securities Ltd w.e.f. 21.12.2004 Shukun Construction w.e.f. 30.08.2006 22. It was also submitted that the share transactions were carried out through brokers who were not traceable as noted by the AO after issuing notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to these brokers. The BSE in reply to notice u/s 133(6) of the Act stated that many of brokers did not execute any share transactions on the said dates as stated by the assessee as observed by the CIT(A) in para 2.3.2 of appeal order. The shares prices in which the assessee claimed to have made gains shot up exorbitantly and astoundingly in a very short period without corresponding increase in the worth or intrinsic value as noted by the CIT(A) in para no 2.3.5 of the appeal order. The ld DR submitted that the SEBI investigated some of the brokers and even imposed penalties as observed by the CIT(A) in para 2.3.7 of appeal order. A search on Shri Narinder Shah proved that he was engaged in providing bogus entries of penny stocks at high prices and he gave detailed account of modus operandi during his own appellate proceedings which is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the order placed at page no 5 to 11 of the Paper book and the balance out of cash Rs. 8,383/- . The payments were duly entered in the books of the assessee and accordingly investments in shares were also shown in the Balance Sheet as at 31.3.2003 beside showing the short term gain of Rs. 1,49,916/- and cash payments which were also examined by the AO framing the assessment for AY 2003-04 and accepted while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. However , the AO rejected the contention of the assessee of long term capital gain on sale of shares of Rs. 69 35,295/- and assessed the same as income of other sources for the reasons that the assessee has taken bogus entries of purchases and sales from the brokers who were engaged in the business of providing such entries and consequent capital gain was also bogus without doubting the bills and vouchers of sales and purchase of shares despite the fact the sources of investments were accepted by the AO in AY 2003-04 as stated hereinabove. The first appellate authority enhanced the assessment by treating the entire sale consideration of Rs. 70,93,594/- as income from other sources u/s 68 of the Act by making enquiries ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ul and are not sham as the shares purchases and sales were as per books of the assessee and supported with evidences on records. 24. In the case of CIT Vs Jamnadevi Agarwal(supra) the Hon‟ble High Court has held that merely that the assessee has purchased and sold the shares of similar companies through same broker could not a ground for holding the transactions to be bogus and sham when the documentary evidences were produced to establish the genuineness of the claim. The shares were purchased and confirmed by the company to have handed over the shares bought by the assessee similarly the sale of shares were also evidenced by the documents though the purchases and sales were made off market at the prevailing rate in the market. The Hon‟ble court held that the mere fact that these transactions were off market could not be ground to treat the transactions as bogus or sham and upheld the finding of facts by the tribunal that the transactions were genuine. The Hon‟ble high court while upholding the tribunal decision considered and distinguished the decision of the Hon‟ble apex Court in case of Sumati Dayal Vs CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801(SC) by observing the in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as unexplained investment under section 69 and added same to income of assessee - Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed addition holding that share transactions were carried out by assessee outside stock exchange and not through any registered broker - Assessee‟s claim was that these were off-market transactions - Whether since purchase and sale of shares outside floor of Stock Exchange is not an unlawful activity, it was not possible to hold that transactions reported by assessee were quite sham - Held, yes - Whether since books of account maintained by assessee clearly reflected purchase of those shares and since evidence on record fully established that assessee had purchased shares and had sold shares, sale proceeds of shares stood explained by assessee - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, addition in question was unjustified - Held, yes Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments - Assessment year 2001-02 - Assessing Officer treated certain amount, credited in bank account of assessee‟s minor son, as unexplained investment under section 69 and added same to income of assessee - Whether since said amount represented realization of loan outstanding wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fforded opportunity of cross-examination of Shri Mukesh Choksi to the assessee. It is noteworthy that Sh. Choksi had not named the assessee in his statements as the beneficiary who had availed bogus entries. We have noticed that the assessee had shown the investment in shares in the balance- sheet of the earlier assessment year and her return of income was accepted by the Department. We are of the opinion that once sales/purchase of shares is accompanied by this kind of evidences the genuineness of the said transactions cannot be doubted. Non-payment of STT cannot be and should not be basis for making addition of the section 68 of the Act. FAA has categorically held that all the necessary details about ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010 ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009 ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009 purchase and sale of shares were made available to the AO during assessment proceedings. We have perused the case laws relied upon by the AR. In the case of Mukesh R Marolia (supra) Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held as under: " ....On further Appeal, the ITAT by the impugned order allowed the claim of the Assessee by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....change records showed that the shares were purchased for code numbers S003 and R121 of STPL and RMPL respectively. Out of these two, only RMPL is listed in the appraisal report and it is stated to be involved in the modus operandi. It is on this material that the Assessing Officer holds that the transactions of sale and purchase of shares are doubtful and not genuine. In relation to assessee's role in all this, all that the Commissioner observed is that the assessee transacted through brokers at Calcutta, which itself raises doubt about the genuineness of the transactions and the financial result and performance of the company was not such as would justify the increase in the share prices. Therefore, he reached the conclusion that certain operators and brokers devised the scheme to convert the unaccounted money of the assessee to the accounted income and the assessee utilized the scheme. [Para 5] The Tribunal concluded that there was something more which was required, which would connect the assessee to the transactions and which are attributed to the promoters/directors of the two companies. The Tribunal referred to the entire material and found that the investigation stopp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the broker. Nowhere the AO has alleged that the transaction by the assessee with these particular broker or share was bogus, merely because the investigation was done by SEBI against broker or his activity, assessee cannot be said to have entered into ingenuine transaction, insofar as assessee is not concerned with the activity of the broker and have no control over the same. We found that M/s Basant Periwal and Co. never stated any of the authority that transaction in M/s Ramkrishna Fincap Pvt. Ltd. on the floor of the stock exchange are ingenuine or mere accommodation entries. The CIT(A) after relying on the various decision of the coordinate bench, wherein on similar facts and circumstances, issue was decided in favour of the assessee, came to the conclusion that transaction entered by the assessee was genuine. Detailed finding recorded by CIT(A) at para 3 to 5 has not been controverted by the department by brining any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT(A). Moreover, issue is also covered by the decision ofjurisdictional High Court in the case of Shyam R. Pawar (supra), wherein under similar facts and circumsta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by his wife. Therefore the question is whether he has satisfactorily proved that case. If he has failed to prove that case, as we think, it to be so and in the absence of any other alternative case pleaded by him, it follows as a matter of course that the consideration for the sale passed from him. Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the reliability of the evidence placed before a Court or Tribunal, Therefore the Courts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probabilities. Human minds may differ as to the reliability of a piece of evidence. But in that sphere the decision of the final fact finding authority is made conclusive by law. 17. The fact that the assessee kept a separate account in respect of the income and expenditure relating to the premises in question is of little evidentiary value if one takes into consideration the past history of the case. At any rate what value should be attached to that circumstance is for the final fact finding body. 18. The circumstance that the assessee had at the very outset produced the sale deed and the trust deed before the Income-tax Officer is of no significance. Those doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issue by observing and holding as under:- "3.2 Decision: 3.2.1 I have carefully and dispassionately considered the facts and circumstances of the case, relevant assessment order, the written submissions made and the arguments made by the Ld. AR. The Assessing Officer has given detailed reasons for coming into conclusion that the cost of purchase of shares of Rs. 78,465/-, Rs. 49,770/-, Rs. 1,58,299/-, Rs. 1,83,870/- and Rs. 70,552/for A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively were unexplained expenditure incurred in the A.Yrs. 2002-03 to 2006-07. These reasons have been discussed in para 8 of the relevant assessment order and inter-alia, included: (a) the alleged speculation income through which the said penny stocks shares were purchased, were not disclosed in the original returns of income nor in response to the returns filed u/s.153C, .. (b) regarding the speculation income which was stated to have been credited to the P&L Ac for A.Y. 2001-02, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer, that neither any business income was declared in that year nor any P&L account was prepared (c) equity shares were allegedly purchased in cash, however, neither the copi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....habad and Hon'ble High Court of Madras, the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 78,465/- for A.Y. 2002-03, Rs. 49,770/- for A.Y.2003-04, Rs. 1,58,299/- for A.Y. 2004-05, Rs. 1,83,8701- for A.Y. 2005-06 and Rs. 70,552/- for A.Y. 2006-07 u/s.69C is confirmed. Ground No.1 is accordingly dismissed." 31. The ld AR vehemently argued that the order of CIT(A) was against the facts on records as the assessee has purchased these shares in AY 2003-04 and not in the current year and therefore the no addition could be made u/s 69C of the Act in the current year when there was no iota evidence to suggest that the these shares were purchased in the current by ignoring the bills issued by the brokers and source of investments duly explained in AY 2003-04 and investments in shares were duly shown in the AY 2003-04 and sources also accepted by the AO while framing the assessment u/s 143(3) r w s 153A of the Act . Therefore the addition was bad in law and without jurisdiction. The ld AR without prejudice to the first arguments submitted that the investment in shares was not an expenditure but an investments therefore invoking provisions of section 69 C of the Act by the AO and its up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... direct the AO to delete the addition. 34. The issue raised in the ground no 3 is against the sustenance of additions of Rs. 3,54,580/- by CIT(A) being commission payments to brokers @ 5% of sales consideration from sales of shares of 70,93,594/- made by the AO. 35. According to the AO the investigation wing of the department has information that the operator used to charge 5% commission of the total sales proceeds for arranging the bills, shares certificate and letter from the company transferring the shares in the name of beneficiary. Accordingly the AO issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why the commission @ 5% should not be added to the income of the assessee of the total sales proceeds of Rs. 70,93,594/- which was replied by the AR by submitting that no such commission was paid and the department found no evidence to this effect during the course of search. The ld AO rejected the contention of the assessee and added a sum of Rs. 3,54,680/- on account of commission alleged paid by the assessee to the brokers u/s 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure by holding that all the transactions were bogus and not genuine. 36. The FAA confirmed the action of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....payments. The ld counsel of the assessee relied on decision of the coordinate bench in the case of assessee‟s family member Smt Kamlaben Pandit V/s ACIT in ITA No 822/Mum/2009(AY-2003-04) dated 26.02.2010 and prayed that the addition be deleted following the decision on similar facts. On the other hand the ld DR relied on the authorities below and submitted for upholding the same. 38. After considering the arguments of the rival sides and taking into account the materials on records as placed before us as also the decision of the coordinate bench, we find that the assessee has proved the genuineness of the transactions of sales and purchase of shares by producing the supporting evidences and the revenue has not brought anything contrary on records except guessing the practice of charging commission @ 5% of sales proceeds in case of bogus transactions. We find merit that nothing incriminating was found by the search team qua the commission payments and therefore addition of Rs. 3,54,680/-can not be sustained which is just a guess and hypothesis by the AO . The case of the assessee is also supported by the decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Smt Kamlaben Pandit V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by two accounts cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 19.10.2005 drawn on Citi Bank and Rs. 3,34,924/- dated 2.12.2005 of HDFC. The assessee received refund of share money applied to Suzlon Energy Ltd on 14.10.2005 Rs. 19,39,530/- in Citi Bank and Rs. 11,64,720/- from Vasant Share Broker on 22.10.2005 in HDFC Bank and it was out of these funds the purchases of shares were made. The assessee produced before the AO the necessary bills and vouchers, bank statements which evidenced the payments for these shares to G.R. Pandya Share Broker. Similarly the sales proceeds were received in by cheque and deposited into the bank account the assessee and bills and vouchers were also produced before AO. The AO however not satisfied with the submissions of the assessee rejected the claim of assessee of short term loss of Rs. 6,54,961/- by holding that bank statement did not state the payment having been made to G R Pandya Share Brokering Ltd though there a payment of Rs. 3,34,925/- ,however, same could not be verified that it was made to said brokering firm. Second payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- could not be verified by the AO due to non submission of bank statement of Citi bank. The AO also noted that G ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Construction Ltd ,purchase of Kailash Ficom Ltd. Under these circumstances we are inclined to set aside the order of CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to delete the disallowance. 48. Now we shall take up the appeals bearing ITA No.3033 to 3037/Mum/2011. Appeal No. Ground No. Decision 3033/Mum/2011 1 Allowed as per decision in ITA No. 3028/Mum/2011 (AY-2002-03) vide para 7 and 8 of this order. 2 and 3 Allowed as per decision in ITA No. 3028/Mum/2011 (AY-2002-03) vide para 10 and 11 of this order 3034/Mum/2011 1 Allowed as per decision in ITA No. 3028/Mum/2011 (AY-2002-03) vide para 10 and 11 of this order 2 Sec.54F which dealt with separately 3 & 4 Allowed as per decision in ITA No. 3028/Mum/2011 (AY-2002-03) vide para 10 and 11 of this order 3035/Mum/2011 1 Allowed as per decision in ITA No. 3028/Mum/2011 (AY-2002-03) vide para 7 and 8 of this order. 2 Sec.54F dealt with separately 3 & 4 Allowed as per decision in ITA No. 3028/Mum/2011 (AY-2002-03) vide para 10 and 11 of this order 3036/Mum/2011 1 Allowed as per decision in ITA No. 3028/Mum/2011 (AY-2....