TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....08.2024. Having no option, we proceed to hear the ld. DR on merits and pass order considering the material available on record. 3. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in treating the reassessment proceedings as valid in law. 4. In this regard, we note that the ld. CIT(A) [NFAC] issued notice intimating the date of hearing to the assessee. The assessee filed written submissions. The ld. CIT(A), considering the statement of facts given in Form 35 and written submissions, held no evidence whatsoever brought on record in support of the claim in contending the reassessment being invalid under law. Before us, no evidence whatsoever filed in support of ground Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the reassessment proceedings initiated by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] and completing the assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act is invalid, thus, ground Nos. 1 & 2 as raised by the assessee are dismissed. 5. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made on account of difference between th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is whether the value of factory land and building sold by the appellant is to be adopted as on the date of business transfer agreement during October, 2011 or as on the date of conveyance deed in the month of December, 2011 when the transfer deed was registered and stamp duty paid by the appellant. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the transfer of any immovable property gets effected by virtue of the registration of the transfer agreement and not on any other date prior to such date. In the instant case, the appellant has registered the conveyance deed transferring the factory land and building in the month of December, 2011 and paid the stamp duty as per the valuation in the month of December, 2011. I am therefore of the considered view that the sale value of the factory land and building is required to be considered as the sale value shown in the month of December, 2011. The action of the A.O. in bringing to tax the differential amount of Rs. 16,00,000/- is therefore in accordance with the provision of law and hence upheld. This ground of appeal raised by the appellant is thus dismissed. 8. From the above, we note that the point at issue before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied on the order of the ld. CIT(A). 12. We note that before the Assessing Officer the assessee failed to produce any valuation report or genuineness of the circumstances and other conditions, which compelled the assessee company to purchase the shares at Rs..45/-. We also noted that the assessee failed to produce share transaction statement, bank account statements for Rs..45/- being paid for each share and Rs..10/- received on resale, confirmations by way of financials from the four entities with whom the whole gamut of purchase and sales of shares took place. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire loss of Rs..7,00,00,000/- claimed by the assessee. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case along with statement of facts and written submissions, the ld. CIT(A) found the submissions of the assessee are not acceptable in the absence of any documentary evidence and passed a detailed order. The relevant portions at para 9.2.1 to 9.2.13 are reproduced herein below for ready reference: 9.2.1 Briefly the facts of the case is that in the return of income filed the appellant declared Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 14,61,66,217/- on account of sale of depreciable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....res do not appears to be a genuine transaction. It is noted by the A.O. that during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant failed to provide copy of bank statement showing the payment made towards purchase of these shares and payment received towards sale of these shares. It is difficult to accept that any prudent businessman who has purchased the shares @Rs.45/- per share (face value of Rs. 10 plus premium of Rs. 35 per share) would sale these shares to the same persons from whom the shares were bought @ face value. Considering the nature of transaction, in my opinion two situations arises i.e. either the premium of Rs. 35/- per share calculated by the valuer is excessive and unreasonable or the shares of the company though commanding price of Rs. 45/- per share, the appellant has sold shares only at face value passing on undue benefit to the other persons and incurring bogus loss. 9.2.5 In case it is considered that the intrinsic value per share determined by the valuer as per net asset value method is correct, there is no evident reason to explain the fall of intrinsic value of shares within a short period of time. In that case, the appellant should have sold the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e obtained through fraudulent means, it is upon the alleger to prove that it is so, ignores the reality. The transaction about purchase of winning ticket takes place in secret and direct evidence about such purchase would be rarely available. In our opinion, the majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities has rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winning from races is not genuine. It cannot be said that the explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts has been rejected unreasonably. We will be superficial in our approach in case we examine the claim of the appellant solely on the basis of documents filed by the appellant and overlook clear the unusual pattern in the documents filed by the appellant and pretend to be oblivious of the ground realities". 9.2.11 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More has further observed that "it is true that an apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recita....