TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se are being diposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Grounds raised in ITA No. 1172/Chd/2019 for the A.Y. 2014-15 read as under: 1.That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the addition of Rs. 21,93,371/- on account of long-term capital gain and Rs. 1,71,235/- on account of alleged expenditure in connection with long-term capital gain. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to uphold the addition particularly in view of the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. 3. That the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee repeated in income which was disclosed in the original return of income filed on 28/10/2014. The A.O. however framed the assessment at an income of Rs. 37,10,866/- by making the addition of Rs. 23,64,606 i.e; LTCG amounting to Rs. 21,93,371/- and Rs. 1,71,235/- on account of the expenses related to the aforesaid LTCG. 5. When the matter was taken to the Ld. CIT(A) the action of the A.O. was sustained. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee at the very outset stated that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh in the case of Anjula Goel Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1174 & 1175/Chd/2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17. It was pointed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that since the assessee had not filed any application under section 245D(1) of the Act before the Settlement Commission therefore it cannot be said that the amount which was disclosed by M/s Rohit Traders had been utilized for making the investment by the assessee. 9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record, in the present case it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by ITAT Chandigarh Bench "A", Chandigarh in the case of Anjuia Goel Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1174 & 1175/Chd/2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 vide order dt. 12/03/2021 and the relevant observations alongwith the findings had been given in para 10 to 16 which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erm Capital Gains" on shares in the following manner:- Assessment Year Amount (Rs) 2014-15 31,10,857/- 2015-16 17,89,989/- Total 47,70,846/- Fact of the matter is that the above-mentioned income merely represents accommodation entries obtained by the said partner. However, all the funds required for obtaining these entries was provided by the applicant firm to its Partner and also represents undisclosed income earned by it. As such, the applicant firm is offering the above-mentioned amount of Rs. 49,70,846/- as additional income vide the present St, of Facts. Also, an amount @ 2% of Rs. 49,70,846/- i.e.. Rs. 99,417/- towards facilitation charges is also being surrendered as additional income vide the present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t can be added to income when source has already been taxed with regard to undisclosed income M/s Radhika Traders cannot be accepted in view of the Hon'ble ITSC's order discussed above. Further, the cognizance of revised return filed declaring LTG as its income and payment of taxes cannot be ignored. There is no provision of the Act which prohibits the AO from doing so. The second proviso to section 153A(l]of the Act only prohibits the AO to pass any assessment after search with respect to pending assessment and the AO is empowered to issue notice u/s 153A to assess or reassess the total income of six assessment year in which such search was conducted or requisition was made. Further, reliance is placed on the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....axing it again in the hands of the assessee. 14. We have perused the contents of the statement of facts filed before the Settlement Commission in the case of M/s Rohit Traders and find merit in the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee. Undoubtedly the impugned long term capital gain of the assessee of Rs. 17,89,989/- alongwith the facilitation charges thereon, stand categorically surrendered as undisclosed income of M/s Rohit Traders ,before the Settlement Commission. The Revenue has not controverted the said fact. The impugned income having been categorically taxed as undisclosed income of the assessees firm, we fail to understand why it should be taxed in the hands of the assessee also, which would only result in taxing ....