TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (9) TMI 1513
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee, a HUF, claimed Rs. 23,98,290/- as an exempt income U/s.10(38). The AO received information based on the investigations conducted by the various regulatory authorities which indicated that M/s. Kappac Pharma Limited was a company with little or no inherent value, its price was rigged and manipulated for the sole purpose of conversion of unaccounted income into apparently genuine income and claiming the same as an exempt income and hence required the assessee to show cause as to why the amount claimed as an exempt income be not taxed etc. After considering assessee's reply etc., completed the assessment primarily based on the investigation report and rejected the assessee's exemption claim. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hose who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable them to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312 (SC)). Thus, the AO must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the AO does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. This Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons (HUF) v. ITO in I.T.A. No. 1849/Chny/2018 dated 06.02.2019, has remitted back the matter to the file of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessees." 4.1 Further, perusal of the above case show that it is similar to the facts in the case of Shri Heerachand Kanunga, a decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal made, for assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12 in ITA Nos. 2786 & 2787/Mds/2017 dated 03.05.2018. The relevant portions from that order is extracted as under :- 9. A perusal of the facts in the present case admittedly given room for suspicion. However, assessments are not to be done on the basis of mere suspicion. It has to be supported by facts and the facts are unfortunately not forthcoming in the Assessment Order, in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) nor from the side of the assessee. The main foundati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....11-12? When were the cheques received by the assessee? From whom did the assessee received the cheques? Was there any cash deposit immediately prior to the issuing of the cheque from the bank account of the purchaser of the shares of the assessee? 11. A perusal of the Assessment Order at Para No.7.1 shows that in the Written Submissions, the assessee states that he has purchased 15000 shares of M/s. BPL from M/s. ABPL, Kolkata. However, in Para No.8.3, it is mentioned that the assessee in good faith has purchased the shares of M/s. BPL from a sub-broker in his friends circle. What is the true nature of the transaction? From whom did the assessee actually purchase the shares? Did the assessee take possession of the shares in its physical ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld.CIT(A) nor from the side of the assessee, we are of the view that the issues in this appeal must be restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate its case and we do so. 12. The statement recorded by the Revenue from Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan cannot be used as an evidence against the assessee in so far as the statement has not been given to the assessee nor has Shri Ashok Kumar Kayan been provided to the assessee for cross-examination. However, the assessee shall prove the transaction of the Long Term Capital Gains in respect of which the assessee has claimed the exemption u/s.10(38) by providing all such evidences as required by the AO to substantiate the claim as a....