TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1723
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rn affirmed the order passed by the Learned Income Tax Officer-Wd 25(2)(4) Mumbai (the AO) making huge addition to the Returned Income is bad in law and deserves to be quashed since the Assessment order passed by the AO is in itself void having been passed in gross violation of principles of Natural Justice 1.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be quashed for being passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and also being based on extraneous considerations while ignoring the relevant, material, considerations and submissions made by the Appellant. 2. ON VALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS 2.1 in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment order passed by the Ld. AO and affirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, void and deserves to be quashed since the same is passed in violation of the extant law and judicial precedents in this regard. 3. ON MERITS 3.1 in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AD in making an addition of Rs. 47.51,164/- under section 68 of the Act thereby ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome and without classifying the same under a specific head as mandated u/s 14 of the Act. 6. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete or modify any or all the above grounds of Appeal" 3. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee has earned Long Term Capital Gain (in short LTCG)amount of Rs. 47,51,164/- on sale of shares of "Sunrise Asian Ltd" during the impugned assessment year which has been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The facts related to the issue are that the assessee had purchased 10,000 shares off market of "SantoshimaTradelinks Ltd", an unlisted company at Rs. 25/- per share from M/s. P. Saji Textiles Ltd. and the payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- was made in advance on 29/09/2011 vide cheque number 214328 of The Kapol Co-operative Bank Ltd, Vile Parle West Branch. M/s. P. Saji Textiles Ltd. issued the debit note dated 17/11/2011 and the shares were transferred in the assessee's name on 20.11.2011. Application for dematerialization of these shares was made on 08.10.2012 and the shares were dematerialized on 29/10/2012 in Demat. By the order dated 08.10.2012 of Hon'ble High Court of BOMBAY, "SantoshimaTradelinks Ltd" was amalgamat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....placed general reliance on the investigation reports, however, the assessee or his broker are nowhere mentioned in the said Investigation reports. Here, the enquiry was conducted behind the back of the assessee.Further, there is no enquiry/investigation/adverse reporting by SEBI or BSE on the assessee or its broker. This fact was even brought to the notice of the AO which has been conveniently ignored by letter dated 19.08.2016 filed with ld. AO. 4.5. The purchases of the assessee have not been doubted and in fact accepted in assessment of earlier years. Further, off-market purchases are not prohibited and in any case the purchases are not doubted. The ld. AR respectfully relied on order of coordinate bench of ITAT Mumbai-G bench in the Smt. Geeta Khare v/s ACIT-Cir-3, Kalyan, ITA No. 4267/Mum/2018, date of pronouncement-29/05/2019. The addition in this case is made simply on the basis of statements of some third persons without linking the same to the assessee and hence not sustainable. The ld. AR respectfully relied on CIT v/s Shyam R. Pawar (2015) 229 Taxman 256 (Bombay). 5. We find that the assessee has discharged his onus by submitting all relevant documents before the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22.04.2024 CIT Appeal Yes (pg. 87 to 93) N/A Yes Dated - 22.04.2024 6. The ld.DR vehemently argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities.The ld. DR has not at all produced any contrary evidence to refute the evidence and transactions of the assessee. 7. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. The ld.AR respectfully relied on the order of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT-1 vs Divyaben Prafulchandra Parmar 2024(1) TMI 800 date of order02-01-2024and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that where the ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench has allowed the exemption under section 10(38) for dealing with the shares of "Sunrise Asian Ltd", in which the assessee also dealt in this impugned assessment year. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has upheld the order of the ITAT and after detailed discussion, the scrip "Sunrise Asian Ltd" is duly accepted for transaction and claiming of deduction under section10(38) of the Act. The assessee in both appeal and assessment stages discharged its onus by submitting all the purchase and sale documents. He revenue was not able to bring any such fact whether the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law. 6. The appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed with no order as to costs." the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Shyam R Pawar 229 Taxman 256 (Bom). The relevant paragraph is reproduced as below: - "6. It is in that regard that we find that Mr.Gopal's contentions are well founded. The Tribunal concluded that there was something more which was required, which would connect the present Assessee to the transactions and which are attributed to the Promoters/Directors of the two companies. The Tribunal referred to the entire material and found that the investigation stopped at a particular point and was not carried forward by the Revenue. There are 1,30,000 shares of Bolton Properties Ltd. purchased by the Assessee during the month of January 2003 and he continued to hold them till 31 March 2003. the present case related to 20,000 shares of Mantra Online Ltd for the total consideration of Rs. 25,93,150/-. These shares were sold and how they were sold, on what dates and for what consideration and the sums received by cheques have been referred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y approved the order of the AO, following the same reasoning, and relying upon the report of the Investigation Wing. Lastly, reliance placed by the Revenue on Suman Poddar case (supra) and Sumati Dayal case (supra) is of no assistance. Upon examining the judgment of Suman Poddar case (supra) at length, we find that the decision therein was arrived at in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances demonstrated before the ITAT and the Court, such as, inter alia, lack of evidence produced by the Assessee (herein to show actual sale of shares in that case. On such basis, the ITAT had returned the finding of fact against the Assessee, holding that the genuineness of share transaction was not established by him. However, this is quite different from the factual matrix at hand. Similarly, the case of Sumati Dayal (supra) too turns on its own specific facts. The above-stated cases, thus, are of no assistance to the case sought to be canvassed by the Revenue. 13.The learned ITAT, being the last fact-finding authority, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, has rightly come (o the conclusion that the lower tax authorities are not able to sustain the addition without any c....