9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 11,37,480/- made on account of unexplained income of Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deletion of Addition of Rs. 11,37,480/- as Unexplained Income: The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which deleted the addition of Rs. 11,37,480/- made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) on account of unexplained income from Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of shares. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee declared a Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 10,54,044/- in their income return, offsetting it with brought forward losses under the head 'capital gains' amounting to Rs. 16,72,787/-. The balance capital loss of Rs. 6,18,743/- was claimed to be carried forward. The gain was derived from the sale of 12,000 shares of Suma Finance Limited, purchased for Rs. 83,436/- and sold for Rs. 11,37,480/-. During assessment, the A.O. found discrepancies in the transactions. Requisitions sent to the brokers, M/s Aggarwal & Co. and M/s Sridhar Financial Services Limited, returned unserved. The A.O. also noted that no trading in Suma Finance shares occurred on the purchase date at the Delhi Stock Exchange. The A.O. concluded the transaction was sham, treating Rs. 11,37,480/- as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) found no evidence to doubt the appellant's investment in the shares, noting that the purchase consideration was paid via draft and the sale proceeds were received through drafts from a registered broker. The CIT(A) directed the A.O. to accept the Short Term Capital Gains as declared and allow the set-off of brought forward losses after verification. Tribunal's Analysis and Decision: The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and material on record, noting the issue was covered by a Third Member decision in a similar case (ITO vs. Smt. Bibi Rani Bansal). In that case, the Tribunal upheld that the purchase and sale of shares were genuine, despite the A.O.'s doubts about the sale consideration. The Tribunal emphasized that statements recorded at the back of the assessee without cross-examination could not be used against the assessee. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmal, which established that suspicion cannot replace proof. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for the Revenue to conclusively prove that transactions were bogus, which was not done in this case. The Tribunal also pointed out that the A.O. failed to provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the broker whose statements were used against them. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to be correct and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Conclusion: Respectfully following the Third Member decision, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s direction to adopt the Short Term Capital Gains as per the return and allow the set-off of brought forward losses after verification was upheld. Final Judgment: The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the order pronounced in the open Court on 29.10.2010.
|
