TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ewellery were found. The addition was made by the AO on account of Rs.50 lakhs alleged to be received by assessee on account of payment from Natvar Parikh & Co. in addition to consideration mentioned in settlement deed for transfer of shares of NPCL. The CIT(A) has deleted the addition in the hands of assessee after having following observation :- "9. On careful consideration of the above facts, I find sufficient merits in the contentions of the appellant. The AO has not justified the addition on any cogent ground and has not been able to rebut the contentions of the appellant in any manner. It is further noticed from various clauses of the order passed by the Company Law Board dated 30.3.2005 as placed by the appellant that it was stres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atvar Parikh and company Ltd. after having the following observation :- "12. We have considered rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that a categorical finding has been recorded by the CIT(A) to the effect that no additional amount was paid, the amount so paid was part and parcel of the total consideration paid to Shri Sujan Parikh. From the record we found that Mr. Sujan Parikh has received the consideration for transfer of shares of NPCL in direct proportion of the market value of the properties held by NPCL in the month of April 2006. There was no mention of any additional amount of Rs.50 lakh. There was no other mention anywhere in the correspondence exchanged for family settlement wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o offered by the assessee was received out of family settlement, therefore, not liable to tax. 9. We have considered rival contentions and found that this ground was raised before the AO, however, in view of the fact that assessee has not filed any revised return with regard to the capital gains originally offered in the return of income, the AO has declined to consider assessee's claim of amount having been received under family settlement and not liable to tax. By the impugned order the CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO. From the record we found that during the year assessee sold shares of NPCL to the company itself, under a family arrangement scheme, endorsed by Company Law Board's order dated 30.03.2006, 13.04.2006 & 26.02.2007. L....