TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ity) for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The appeal was admitted on 23.07.2020 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order passed by the Assessing Officer for re-examination, especially when the Assessing Officer had duly examined the matter in great depth while framing the assessment order? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in remitting the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer by quoting the decision in the case of Kanhaiyalal and Sons (HUF) in ITA.No. 1849/Chny/2014 wherein the onus has been shifted to the revenue with a direction that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....NRA Iron & Steel Private Ltd., in mind, if we examine the order passed by the Assessing Officer, we find that a detailed enquiry had been conducted by the Assessing Officer after affording an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee availed the opportunity through written submissions. The assessee was represented by an authorized representative and thereafter a finding had been rendered. The said finding was tested for its correctness by the CIT(A), who approved the same by order dated 07.8.2018. 25. We refer to the following factual findings rendered by the CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee : "2.1. .......In response to notices, the AR of the assessee Shri Omprakash Jain, B.Com, FCA of Om ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was sent to M/s.Excellent Batter Private Limited calling for the following details under Section 133(6) of the I.T. Act 1961. By the examination of the details and the same was returned unserved by the postal authorities with remarks 'not known'. ...... Besides the above, the AR of the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidences with respect to the sale of shares of M/s.Bakra Pratisthan Limited. Instead, he furnished the bank account copy wherein on 03.1.2012, an amount of Rs. 9,50,714/- was credited in the bank with description 'RTGSINWFIX- FIT SECURITIES'. Considering the above fact, it is concluded as under : 2.4. The purchase of 450 shares of M/s.Dhanlabh Merchandise Limited is itself....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee HUF itself has stated that the HUF is doing commodities trading, why off market transaction for purchase of shares not reported to BSE. Considering the above fact findings, it is established that the purchase of 450 shares of M/s.Dhanlabh Merchandise Limited from M/s. Excellent Barter Private Limited by the assessee is itself a sham transaction. Accordingly, the documentary evidence furnished by the assessee towards purchase of shares of 4500 M/s.Bakra Pratisthan Limited is not a genuine one and hence, the claim of exemption under Section 10(38) towards selling of the same is not entertained. .... 7.11. It can be seen from the client statement of Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan that not only the assessee but the follo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 68 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessed under the head 'income from other sources' Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 thereto are separately initiated for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income with respect to the claim of capital gain made in the light of the findings made in the preceding paragraphs. ...... 7.3.......However, in the present appeal, the appellant purchased the shares of M/s.Bakra Pratisthan Limited in off market. During the course of the hearing on 24.7.2018, the AR admitted that the assessee purchased the shares of M/s.Dhanlab Merchandise Limited in off market. ..... 7.4. These shares were purchased through off market and not through Stock ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indings have not been set aside by the Tribunal and there is no reason for the Tribunal to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration. 27. As pointed out in the decision of this Court in the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co., we find in the instant case that there was no material, which necessitated the remand of the case to the Assessing Officer and it is a clear case where the Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the manner known to law. The Tribunal, being a last fact finding Authority, is under the legal obligation to record a correct finding of fact. It has been held in the cases of (i) M.R.M.Periyannan Chettiar Vs. CIT [reported in (1960) 39 ITR 159 (Madras)] ....