TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1517
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eted the assessment u/s. 143(3) on 29.03.2001, determining his total income at Rs. 22.51 lakhs. While completing the assessment, the A.O. made four additions namely, unexplained cash credit(Rs.12.75 lakhs), addition on account of artificial loss claim (Rs.6.06 lakhs), addition on account of short term capital gain (Rs.2.48 lakhs) and cash credits (Rs.48, 500/-). The matter travelled up to the Tribunal. Vide its order dated 18.06.2010, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the file of the A.O. with following directions on each of the issues involved in appeal: "i. On the issue of Unexplained cash credits (journal Entry) of Rs.12, 75, 000/- : All the entries during the year in the capital account in the books of G.N International ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remitted to the file of AO with a-direction-to-decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. 2. In pursuance of the order of the Tribunal, the A.O. issued notice to the assessee and called for certain details. As per the AO the assessee did not filed any supporting or explanatory evidences with regard to the entries appearing in his capital account, that he was given specific opportunity to support his case, that after a lapse of considerable time the assessee had not filed/produced any books of account/supporting document for verification. 3. First ground of appeal is about addition of Rs. 12.75 lakhs u/s. 68 of the Act. In his order, passed u/s. 143(3), the A.O. had referred to the detailed submission made by the assessee. He obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt so, provisions of section 68 were not applicable. He referred to the cases of Kharawala(147ITR67); and Baladin Ram(71ITR427)(SC). The Departmental Representative contended that disputed sum was found credited in the books of account, that there was no entry in the bank statement about UBI charges, that the assessee had not filed reconciliation as directed by the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that while deciding the appeal the FAA had passed a very cryptic order without assigning any reason for arriving at the conclusion. We find that FAA had not dealt with the submissions made by assessee holding that same were irrelevant and misleading. But, he has not stated as to how t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported the order of the FAA. We find that the order passed by the FAA is not a speaking and reasoned order. In pursuance of the directions of the ITAT the assessee had filed bank statement. The FAA should have dealt with the arguments of redeposit of cash and motor car insurance claim before deciding the appeal. So, we are remitting back the issue to FAA to decide the issue afresh. The FAA would afford an effective hearing to the assessee. Second ground is partly allowed. 6. Third Ground of appeal is on account of loss of Rs. 6.06 lakhs. The AO observed that the buyer of the goods was a company, in which assessee himself was a director, that profit was diverted in the instant case to an associated concern, that loss claimed by assessee w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... question resulted in loss same should not be disallowed merely because purchaser was a related concern. We also agree with the assessee that if he had valued the stock at market rate it would have resulted in loss. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the FAA was not justified in rejecting the claim made by the AO. So, reversing his order, we decide Ground No.3 in favour of the Assessee. 7. Next Ground of appeal (GOA 4, 5 and 6)deals with one issue and that is computation of income under Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as against short term capital gain (STCG) of Rs. 12.51 lakhs. A flat was allotted to the assessee, vide Memorandum of Understanding, dt. 25/10/1993. He paid a consideration of Rs. 32 la....