2018 (12) TMI 1761

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... declaring income of Rs. 2,66,53,250/- from business, salary, house property, Other Sources and Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 1,63,61,436/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2016, wherein the assessee's income was determined at Rs. 4,62,67,231/- in view of the sale consideration of Rs. 1,96,13,981/- arising on account of sale of 9,900 shares of M/s. NCL Research and Financials Services Ltd., being held to be unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A)-5, Bangalore, dismissed the assessee's appeal vide the impugned order dated 31.01.2018. 3.1 Aggrieved b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the same. There being no unexplained credit and in fact the credit having been duly explained, makes the addition U/s. 68 wholly erroneous and liable to be deleted. 5. The appellant denies liability to pay interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act. The interest having been erroneously levied to be deleted. 6. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of' hearing. it is requested that the impugned order be quashed or at least the assessment of entire sale consideration on sale of shares as Income from Other Sources be deleted, the income from Long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares as returned by the appellant be accepted, and the intere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of the AO with the direction to confront the matter to the file of the AO with the direction to confront the assessee with the reports / documents / statements proposed to be used against the assessee, allow rebuttal thereof and cross examination of parties on whose testimony is proposed to be relied upon and the matter be adjudicated afresh after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to also file details / submissions in this regard. 3.4 In Rejoinder, the ld.AR for the assessee did not dispute the proposition put forth by the ld. DR for restoring this issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. 3.5 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including th....