2020 (8) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of completing the assessment under section 143(3) and making addition of Rs. 14,99,917/- and disallowing the LTCG claim of Rs. 14,99,917/- under section 10(38) merely on the basis of alleged statements of third parties, without providing the copies of such statements and without providing the opportunity to cross examine such parties, thus, violating the principles of natural justice as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006) and Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT, AIR 1980 SC 2117. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the actio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er in scrutiny assessment proceedings held the aforesaid amount as unexplained credit and made addition under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The ld. Authorized Representative of the assesse pointed that the assessee had furnished various documents to substantiate that the amount credited to the bank was sale proceeds of shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. The Assessing Officer rejected all the submissions of the assessee. In first appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) also brushed aside the evidences and contentions of the assessee and upheld the findings of Assessing Officer. 3.1. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee contended that father -in-law of the assessee Shri Narayan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntative vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing the appeal of assessee. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has assailed the findings of CIT (A) in disallowing benefit of section 10(38) of the Act on long term capital gain arising from sale of shares. The assessee during the relevant period had sold shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 14,99,917/-. The authorities below held the sale transaction in aforementioned scripts as bogus and thus, made addition under section 68 of the Act. We find that similar disallowance was made in the case of Narayan R. Rathi (father-in-law of the present assesse/appellan....