TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1705
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "the Act") for Assessment Years 2004-05 and 2005-06 vide his separate orders dated 23.12.2009. 2. The only common issue in these three appeals of revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the addition made by AO on account of profit arising out of sale of shares as income from undisclosed sources as against disclosed by the assessee as capital gains. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in all the three appeals and hence, we will take the facts from ITA No. 624/K/2011 for AY 2004-05 and adjudicate the issue. The grounds raised in ITA No. 624/K/2011 by the revenue read as under: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in fact in deleting the addition of Rs. 48,44,000Imade on account of disallowance of assessee's c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-0806/3297 dated 17.06.2008 admitted that no such transaction of PSL Finance Ltd. was executed by M/s. Badri Prasad & Sons, the broker. Similar is the position in respect to Sangotri Construction Ltd. that the assessee claimed to have made purchases through stock broker M/s. V. K. Singhania & Co. of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. and in turn they intimated that no such transaction was executed by M/s. V. K. Singhania & Co. According to AO, both the transactions were found to be incorrect and accordingly, he treated the profit arising out of shares as income from other sources instead of capital gains. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A), who relying on the order in the case of Smt. Shreyashi Ganguly, the daughter of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on the contract notes. We further find that Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in assessee's daughter's case in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Shreyashi Ganguly, GA No. 2281 of 2012, ITAT No. 196 of 2012 dated 05.09.2012 has held as under: "The Assessing Officer has doubted the transaction since the selling broker was subjected to SEBI's action. However, the d-mat account given the statement of transactions from 1.4.04 to 31.3.2005 i.e.relevant for the assessment year under appeal [2005-06] are before us. There cannot be any doubt about the transaction as has been observed by the Assessing Officer. The transactions were as per norms under controlled by the Securities Transaction Tax, brokerage service tax and cess, which were already paid. They were....