2018 (1) TMI 1387 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus purchases - Non considering the statement of Shri Mukesh M Chokshi taken on oath u/s. 132(4) - Held that - As decided in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax5 v. Dhwani Mahendra Shah 2018 (3) TMI 1208 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT Tribunal observed that the entire assessment was based on the statement of one Mukesh M Chokshi a copy of which was not supplied to the assessee nor opportunity of cross-examining him was granted. Tribunal also gave independent reasons for overturning the orders of the Revenue authorities. It was noticed that the consideration for purchase of shares was paid by cheque. The shares were transferred in the names of the assessee and thereafter to the demat account of the assessee. It was from such demat account the shares were sold. The issue is primarily based on appreciation of evidence on record. No question of law arises.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2008-09.
2. Consideration of statement taken on oath under section 132(4) of the Act as binding evidence.
3. Deletion of additions in share transactions carried out off the market.
4. Comparison with a previous court decision.

The appellant challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order for the assessment year 2008-09 under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant proposed substantial questions of law regarding the consideration of a statement taken on oath under section 132(4) of the Act as binding evidence and the deletion of additions in share transactions conducted off the market. The court heard arguments from both sides, where the respondent's advocate referenced a previous court decision in a similar case. The appellant's counsel did not contest the legal position presented by the respondent. The court noted that a previous decision by the same court in a related case had dismissed an appeal with similar questions, indicating that the present appeal should also be dismissed on the same grounds. The court found that the impugned order by the Tribunal did not suffer from any legal infirmity based on the previous decision, leading to the summary dismissal of the appeal.