2016 (10) TMI 1028

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 6.10.2010 in the case of M/s ARSS Infrastructures Project Ltd and group concerns. During the course of search action, at the premises of Shri Jitendra Mehta, father of the assessee, certain incriminating materials in the form of various loose papers were found and seized, which pertained to the assessee. 3. Ground No.1 and 2 are against the deletion of addition on account of receipt of sale of shares of M/s ARSS Infrastructures Project Ltd amounting to Rs. 1,20,00,000/- by the ld. CIT(A) ignoring the facts that AO had relied upon the documentary evidences which were found during the course of search action. Grounds of appeal no.3 and 4 are general in nature, therefore, need no adjudication, hence dismissed. 4. At the outset, the ld.AR s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....Jitendra Mehta and the assessee Shri Deven Mehta were engaged in the business of buying, transferring and manipulating the shares of M/s ARSS Infrastructures Project Ltd before its listing on 3.3.2010. The AO observed that the assessee sold 60000 shares to Shri Suresh Gaggar @ Rs. 13.33 ps per share and thus the AO noted that the assessee was involved in managing the IPO to which private limited companies and Mr. Suresh Gaggar were privy to such operations. According to the AO, two groups were indulged in manipulation in the share transactions of M/s ARSS Infrastructures Project Ltd before IPO and purchase and sales were made at different rates thereby earning profit outside the books of accounts. Finally, the AO came to the conclusion tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and circumstances of the appellant's case: (i) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Godavari Corporation Ltd. (1993) 200 ITR 567 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Shivakami Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 71 (SC) (iv)CIT V/s Smt.Nandini Nopany (1998) 230 IRE 679 (Cal) 14.2 In view of the decisions cited above, it is established that even if there were some other instances of sale of shares at a higher price that cannot lead to a conclusion that the appellant had also sold its shares at higher price until otherwise the A.O is able to prove that the consideration received by the appellant is more than what is shown in the return of income. Since the A.O failed to establish that the appellant had received the sale considera....