9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their Balance Sheet of the last five years and genuineness of the Books of Accounts was never questioned - Decided in favor of assessee. - Tax Appeal No.4 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 13-7-2012 - Prakash Tatia, Jaya Roy, JJ. For Appellant : M/s Deepak Roshan, Adv Amit Kumar, Adv Rupa Kumari, Adv For Respondent : M/s Binod Poddar, Sr. Adv, Mahendra Choudhary, Adv Darshana Poddar, Adv Piyush Poddar, Adv Amrita Sinha, Adv JUDGEMENT Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. These bunch of Tax Appeals are arising out of the order passed Tax Appeal No.4 of 2011 with analogous case by the I.T.A.T. Dated 29.4.2010 whereby the I.T.A.T has dismissed the appeals of the Revenue and upheld all the separate orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) (Appeals) whereby the CIT (Appeals), Jamshedpur vide order dated 8.5.2009 set aside the order passed by the A.O. and held that the income declared by the assessee under the heading 'Long Term Capital Gain' is correct declaration given by the assessees. 3. The brief facts of the case are that all theses assessees submitted their Returns of income and therein they claimed that they purchased certain shares of various companies and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) found that the purchase of the shares were shown by the assessees in their Balance Sheet of the last five years and genuineness of the Books of Accounts was never questioned. In one of the case, for example, in the Tax Appeal No. 14 of 2011, before us, there is a transaction of shares of the same company namely M/s Srinidhi Trading Ltd. for which it has been noticed that the shares of this company having market value Rs. 9.02 on 9.3.2004 jumped to Rs.160 as on 31.3.2006 and before that on 29.8.2005 to Rs.159.53. The C.I.T. (Appeals) considering the facts of this assessee found that the assessee purchased the shares of the said company, but, purchase transaction is supported by the documents and the payment was made through the Bank and it is Tax Appeal No.4 of 2011 with analogous case verified well from the Bank Statement and from the Bank Account number of EXIS Bank Ltd. The shares remained in the possession of the assessee. The fact of shares remaining in possession of the assessee is verifiable from the Statement of assessee's D.MAT account number which has been given in the order. The shares is disclosed in the Balance Sheet as on 31.3.2004 and 31.6.2005. The shares were sold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the case as well as on the basis of the evidence and the averments on record. 6. One of the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that, the I.T.A.T committed serious error of law in decided all the appeals by a common order and by not deciding the each individual appeal separately by separate order by giving separate facts and reasons for each of the appeal. Learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that all the transactions of the assessees were different, and therefore, if the I.T.A.T would have considered each of the appeals separately, it may have remanded either all the cases or some of the cases to reconsider the question of genuineness of the transactions carried out by the assessees. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in Tax Appeal No.04 of 2011, Tax Appeal No.10 of 2011, it has been shown that there was share transaction of one company namely Niharika India Ltd. whereas such transactions were not proved. Learned counsel for the Tax Appeal No.4 of 2011 with analogous case appellant further submitted that, exemption clause under the statute has to be construed as such and cannot be extended beyond the clear language used in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank account number etc. The assessees produced the contract note of the transactions which were discarded by the Assessing Officer without any reason and without their being any evidence to rebut those contracts. It is also submitted that the I.T.A.T has not committed any mistake of fact or law in deciding all the appeals together because of the simple reason that all the appeals were argued as one case and all the facts of the individual assessee was duly considered by the first appellate authority and the I.T.A.T has decided the issues upholding the findings of the appellate authority and in concurring orders detail reasons may not be required to be given in much detail, if from the reasons given, the correctness in the decision of the second appellate authority can be found and in the case in hand, it finds support from the lower appellate authority's given reasons. 10. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the considered opinion that the learned Assessing Officer was much influenced by the enqiury report which may has been brought on record by the efforts of the Assessing Officer and that enquiry report was prepared by the S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
