TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omputer print outwithout any independent verification of the same. 2) That the learned Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of Long Term Capital Loss of Rs.1,04,40,635 suffered by the Assessee Company on sale of equity shares of its group companies, on the alleged ground that the group of the Assessee is gaining by collusive transactions leading to fictitious loss as the shares of group companies had been sold at a price much lower than its market value without the dynamics of market force. 3)That the learned Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals), while confirming the aforesaid disallowance of Rs.1,04,40,635, failed to consider various documents and the submissions of the Appellant Company ignoring the judgements of various Courts including Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court and the Jurisdictional Kolkata Benches of Appellate Tribunal relied on by it in support of its claim. 4) That the learned Commissioner of lncome Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the aforesaid disallowance of Rs.1,04,40,635 wrongly relying on the concept of fair market value of the transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... out that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer never tried to cross-verify the alleged cash transaction by doing independent enquiry. In the absence of said enquiry addition cannot be made only on the basis of loose sheets. The loose sheets which were taken the base for addition by the Assessing Officer have not been corroborated by any further evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on the loose sheets should be deleted. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 8. We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we note that a survey u/s 133A was conducted at assessee's premises on 19.02.2013. Thereafter, assessee revised his return of income and declared total income of Rs. 2,15,10,270/-. During the survey proceedings certain documents were impounded from assessee's premises, containing loose sheets and such impounded documents revealed assessee's transaction with M/s Choudhury Hydrocarbon (P) Ltd. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs additions cannot be made." In our opinion, the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) is justified and no interference is called for in the order of the CIT(A). The following cases support the action of the CIT(A): 1. CIT Vs. Anil Bhalla [2010] 322 ITR 191 (Del.) - wherein held that the notings recorded on the loose sheet of paper do not represent any expenditure incurred by the assessee director and that the entries related to the company in as much as theassessee could explain from the books of the company thatthese projects were undertaken by it, and upheld the deletion ofthe impugned addition under s. 69C, findings arrived at by theTribunal are pure findings of facts and the same do not warrantany interference. 2. ACIT Vs. J.P. Morgan India (P) Ltd. [2011] 46 SOT 250 (Mum.) 3. CIT Vs. Dinesh Jain HUF [2012] 211 Taxman 23 (Delhi) 4. CIT Vs. Jaipal Aggarwal [2013] 212 Taxman 1 (Delhi) -wherein it was held that Dumb documents seized, ie from whichnothing could be clearly understood, cannot form a justifiedbase for making additions to income of the assessee. 17.1 In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that theaddition made by the Assessing Officer based on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsaction. Hence, he has disallowed this long term capital loss of Rs. 1,07,99,741/-. We note that there is mistake in the computation, which is that AO has used the figure of Rs. 1,04,40,634/- in the computation of total income whereas the disallowance was of Rs. 1,07,99,741/-. 12. Aggrieved by the stand so taken by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A).The ld CIT(A) held that the group of the Assessee is gaining by collusive transactions leading to fictitious loss as the shares of group companies had been sold at a price much lower than its market value without the dynamics of market force, therefore, ld CIT(A) had confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, to the tune of Rs. 1,07,99,741/-. 13.Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. On the other hand, ld DR relied on the stand taken by the assessing officer. 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record, we note that in the assessee's case under consideration the group companies were going through a process o....