TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he merits of the controversy that is concerning an addition of Rs.4,89,325/- made under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as income from undisclosed sources. 3. It appears that the Assessee had claimed a deduction under Section 54F of the Act in respect of a long-term capital gain of Rs.4,89,325/- on account of sale of shares of M/s Nilamber Holdings Limited and the amount was invested in the purchase of a house property. 4. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the earning of capital gains through the sale of shares was not genuine. He based his view on a report received from Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Gurgaon [DDIT(Inv.)] to the effect that the Assessee had taken a cheque/draft for an amount of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er of these shares may kindly be intimated. ii. No. of shares purchased and value thereof. iii. Mode of payment by the cash/cheque and source thereof. iv. Prevailing rate of the shares as per stock exchange in the open market on the date of alleged transaction and for the last 2 years as per rates quoted in the stock-exchange as per taxman. v. Please furnish the photocopies of shares certificates purchased, date when transferred in your name and copies of debit/credit notes. vi. Please furnish copy of your Bank Accounts from 01-04-1994 to 31-03-1995.? 6. The Assessee furnished all the details as required in the letter. 7. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer makes a reference to the statement of Maheshwari that was recorded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [the "CIT(A)"], which was dismissed on the ground that the Assessee had not asked for the statements of any of the persons, that is, Maheshwari, Hasija Gulati or even Parveen Mittal. 10. Against the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the contention of this Assessee before the Tribunal (and which has been accepted) that the statement of Maheshwari recorded on 8th December, 1999 was not made known to the Assessee nor was supplied to the Assessee. The Assessee was not aware that such a statement was made because this fact was not known to the Assessee. It appears that even the statement and the material gathered as a result....