TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1032
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Assessment was concluded under section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2016, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs. 1,30,41,450/-, in view of the sale proceeds of Rs. 96,24,508/- arising on the sale of shares of M/s. NCL Research and Financial Services Ltd., being treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and being brought to tax in the assessee's hands. On appeal, the CIT(A)-10, Bengaluru, dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte vide order dated 08.10.2018 due to non-attendance of the assessee on the dates of hearing and passed the orders without hearing the assessee on the merits of the matter. 3. Aggrieved by the ex-parte order of the CIT(A)-10, Bengaluru, dated 08.10.2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal wherein she has raised the following grounds:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far as it is against the appellant are opposed to law, equity and weight of evidence, natural justice, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellant denies herself liable to be assessed to tax on a total income of Rs. 1,30,41,450/- as determined by the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... supported by contract notes, bank statement, demat statements and therefore the exemption ought to have been granted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in law in confirming the action of the learned Assessing Officer, who relied solely on the findings of the Investigation Department, hence the orders passed are bad in law and not sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. The authorities below also failed to consider the unimpeachable material on record substantiating the claims made by the appellant and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law in not setting aside the order of the AO, since no opportunity to cross examine was provided to the appellant and hence the order passed was in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently the assessment order passed was bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law in not holding that the Assessing officer is not justified in law in taxing the sale consideration amount of Rs. 96,24,511/- under section 115BBE of the Act on the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respect of the subsequent hearings fixed by the CIT(A) for 21.05.2018 and the last hearing for 18.09.2018, the learned AR points out that the CIT(A) himself has recorded that these two notices of hearing have been returned back unserved. It is contended that it is in the circumstance as laid out above that the CIT(A) passed the impugned order ex-parte without hearing the assessee on the merits of issues raised in the appeal before him which has resulted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further submitted that there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee in seeking adjournments of hearings as the assessee is fastened with a huge tax demand of Rs. 44,65,340/- which it contests. It is prayed that in the interest of substantial justice, the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) be set aside and the matter be heard and decided on merits. 4.2 Per contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the CIT(A). 4.3.1 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record on the issue before us. As contended by the learned AR, on perusal of the impugned order of the CIT(A) at para 4 thereof, it is seen that the CIT(A) has reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchase and sales of shares etc., and the list of beneficiaries include the name of the assessee also. It is submitted that the above details are available and recorded in the impugned order of assessment at paras 2.4 to 6.4 thereof. It was submitted that though the copy of the statements of Shri. Devesh Upadhyay and Shri. Narendra Balasia were made available to the assessee, the assessee was not given the Report of Kolkata Investigation Directorate nor has she been allowed cross-examination of the persons on the basis of whose statements, the authorities below have drawn adverse inference in the assessee's case. The learned AR submitted that under these facts, judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Chandra Devi Kothari in writ petition No.39370/2014 dated 2nd of Feb, 2015 (copy of which has been placed on record), is squarely applicable. The learned AR has particularly drawn our attention to Para No.8 of this judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, as per which it was held that since the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of fair hearing by providing copy of the statement and related details, the matter is required to be reconsidered by the AO....