9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 107 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s. 68 r.w.s. 115BBE - alleged evidence collected at the back of the assessee and not providing opportunity to examine and cross examine the witnesses - Held that - In the present appeal i.e. alleged evidence collected at the back of the assessee and not providing opportunity to examine and cross examine the witnesses and the same was only raised before the Ld. CIT(A), who did not adjudicate the same, which is against the settled law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are of the considered view that CIT(A) has not adjudicated the legal ground no. 3 raised before him, which is very essential to adjudicate upon. Hence, we are setting aside the issues in dispute before us, to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the same afresh alongwith ground no. 3 raised before the Ld. CIT(A), which is reproduced above under para no. 5 of this order and accordingly pass a speaking order thereon, after considering all the aforesaid documentary evidences and give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues:
1. Addition of income under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of Income Tax Act, 1961 2. Genuineness of share transaction resulting in LTCG u/s. 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 3. Addition of expenses under section 69C of Income Tax Act Analysis: Issue 1: The Assessee appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the addition of income under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee argued that the issue was covered in their favor by a previous ITAT decision. The Assessee provided various documentary evidence to support their claim, which they believed was not properly considered by the revenue authorities. The ITAT observed that the Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate on a legal ground raised by the Assessee, which was essential to decide upon. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision, directing to consider all documentary evidence and provide adequate opportunity for the Assessee to be heard. Issue 2: Regarding the genuineness of share transactions resulting in LTCG u/s. 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Assessee contended that the shares were transacted on the stock exchange with security transaction tax paid, and thus should not be considered as sham transactions. The ITAT noted that the Assessee had not raised any legal ground on this issue before them but had raised it before the Ld. CIT(A), who did not adjudicate on it. The ITAT directed the Ld. CIT(A) to decide on this issue afresh along with the other grounds raised, ensuring a speaking order after considering all documentary evidence and providing a fair opportunity for the Assessee to present their case. Issue 3: The addition of expenses under section 69C of the Income Tax Act was also challenged by the Assessee. The ITAT found that the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated on this issue as well. Therefore, the ITAT set aside this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh decision, instructing to consider all relevant evidence and grant the Assessee a fair hearing. The Assessee was directed to cooperate fully with the proceedings and submit all necessary documents to support their case. In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the Assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of the Ld. CIT(A) adjudicating on all raised grounds and providing a fair opportunity for the Assessee to present their case.
|
