TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, on similar facts, the additions have been deleted by the CIT(A) and further those orders remained unchallenged by the Revenue. The assessment years in question is a block assessment period pertaining to 1st April 1989 to 16th November 1999. 2. By the present Appeal the Revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law:- "a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in ignoring the fact that the assessee could not substantiate the transfer of funds from the bank statement or books of account which were seized as a computer back up during the course of search and is an afterthought ploy of the assessee to set off as LTCG? b. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in ignoring the fact that the assessee was unaware of the fact that he had sold the shares which has to be set off against the LTCG as he did not point out this fact to the conducting DDIT(Inv) in the statement recorded u/s 131 on 28/01/2000?" 3. Briefly the facts are as under: i. The Respondent-Assessee is a Director of M/s. Jaisingh Maritime Ltd. and al....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne appeared on behalf of the Respondent-Assessee personally or through an authorized representative. The CIT(A) after giving sufficient opportunities, dismissed the Respondent-Assessee's appeal by an order dated 31st March 2017 (Appeal No. CIT (A)-10-ITAT/189/2014-15). v. Being aggrieved by the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) dated 31st March 2017, the Respondent-Assessee once again preferred an appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT restored the matter again to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication vide order dated 24th September 2018 in IT(SS) No. 4/Mum/2018. While remanding the matter back to the CIT(A) by its order dated 24th September 2018, the ITAT held as follows in respect of the set off of STCL against LTCG in the block period as claimed by the Respondent-Assessee. The relevant extract of the ITAT order dated 24th September 2018 is reproduced below:- 2. In this appeal, assessee is aggrieved by ex-parte order of CIT(A) passed without giving opportunity to the assessee. It was also brought to our notice by learned AR that the CIT (A) erred in not considering that, the Short Term capital Loss of Rs both the case of the Appellant's father - Shri Bansi J. Jaisin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the case of the father and the brother of the Respondent-Assessee i.e. Mr. Bansi Jairamdas Jaising and Mr. Ravi Jaising and allowed the set off of STCL to the Appellant while allowing the Appeal. The CIT(A) reproduced the relevant extracts of the order of his predecessor dated 31st March 2017 passed in the case of the father and the brother of the Respondent-Assessee i.e. Shri. Bansi Jairamdas Jaising and Shri. Ravi Jaising and the categorical findings regarding the shares transferred which resulted in STCL in the hands of the brother and father of Respondent-Assessee i.e. Mr. Bansi Jairamdas Jaising and Mr. Ravi Jaising and also LTCG against which a set off was claimed. Relevant extracts of the order are reproduced below:- 8. We have considered the issue of the date of transfer of shares the MoU as stated by the Revenue, was dated. The consideration for the transfer of shares was received by the assessees on through their bank accounts. So the question to be considered is whether the transfer of shares was closed on 6.3.1997 or 3.4.1997 and whether the date of MoU is to be considered for that purpose. or the date of receipt of money is to be considered. As rightly argu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-law and grandmother, it is quite natural that the Assessing Officer would get suspicious and would have inclined to presume that the share transactions were fabricated just for the purpose of reducing the tax incicence on the long term capital gains, by claiming set off. That is quite natural. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel appearing for the assesses, the shares were transferred by the assesses on the basis of valuation reports, which paced before the assessing authority on which no adverse observations were made by him. On going through the records, we find the assessing Officer has no. case that the values of shares stated on sale were under-stated by the assesses. As argued by the learned Counsel, there is no law which prohibits the assesses in selling the shares to their mother, mother-in-law reducing the tax liability by way of skill full tax planning. So long as the planning is within the four corners of law, it is not possible for us to stop the assesses. Therefore, we find that the strong presumption that the transactions were only fabricated, should not be allowed to decide the issue and the issue must be decided on available evidence. The CIT(A) should....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt. Ltd were transferred and payments for the same have deemed to have been received by the Appellant. The ITAT reproduced the findings of the CIT(A) which reads thus:- "7.4. Considering that that the the present case are identical to the facts of the cases decided by my predecessor CIT(A) in Appeal No. CIT(A)-10/ITAT/187/2014-15, dated 31/03/2017 in the case of Sh. Bansi Jairamdas Jaising and in. Appeal No CIT(A)-10/ITAT/188/2014-15, dated 31/03/2017 in the case of Sh. Ravi B. Jaising, there is no reason to deviate from the findings given by my predecessor in the above two cases. The findings given by my predecessor in these cases will apply mutatis mutandis to the present case The AQ shall recompute the income of the appellant in the light of the above decision." ix. Further, the ITAT has also recorded a finding that the Respondent- Assessee before the CIT(A) has made detailed submissions including the date of acquisitions and date of sale of shares of Jaising Maritime Ltd. and Jaising Capital Pvt. Ltd. and also working of the STCL which had been provided by the Respondent-Assessee before the CIT(A). This fact pattern was similar in the case of the father and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und itself. Further there were no Appeals filed by the Revenue in the case of the father and brother of the Respondent-Assessee i.e. Mr. Bansi Jairamdas Jaising and Mr. Ravi Jaising and hence the same have attained finality. Analysis 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record including the impugned order. We are of the view that the impugned order does not give rise to any question of law and would not require interference on the questions of law as formed by the Revenue. We find that the impugned order is passed on a proper appreciation of the facts of the case. 7. It is our view that the ITAT has proceeded on a correct footing in dismissing the revenue's appeal inasmuch as the revenue was unable to point out any distinguishing factor in the case of the Respondent-Assessee, when on an identical fact pattern, the additions in the case of the father and brother of the Respondent-Assessee i.e. Mr. Bansi Jaising and Mr. Ravi Jaising have been deleted. The said proceedings have also attained finality as the revenue has not preferred any appeals post the CIT(A)'s order in the case of the Respondent Asseessees brother and father. The revenue cannot therefore b....