9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Dispute over deletion of income treated as "Income from other sources" instead of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares of M/s. Jay Kay Dee Industries Ltd. for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.
Assessment Year 2003-04: The appellant claimed capital gain on sale of shares, but the Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the transactions. The AO conducted inquiries and concluded that the transactions were not genuine, adding the sale proceeds to the appellant's income. The appellant provided evidence of purchase and sale transactions, including bills, contract notes, bank statements, and D-Mat account records. The CIT(A) held that the appellant had produced sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the AO's decision was based on theoretical grounds without concrete evidence. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the transactions were genuine based on the evidence provided by the appellant. Assessment Year 2004-05: Similar to the previous year, the AO considered the sale of shares as sham transactions and added the proceeds to the appellant's income. The appellant presented evidence of purchase and sale transactions, including bills, contract notes, and bank statements. The CIT(A) found that the appellant had provided substantial evidence to support the genuineness of the transactions, and the AO's conclusions lacked concrete proof. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the transactions were genuine based on the evidence presented by the appellant. The Tribunal rejected the department's appeals for both assessment years, emphasizing that the appellant had provided comprehensive evidence to support the authenticity of the transactions, including purchase and sale documents, bank statements, and confirmation from the broker. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling in favor of the appellant for assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05.
|
