Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (2) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g Counsel in this respect is not liable to be accepted. - IT APPEAL NO. 468 OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 3-1-2013 - R.K. AGRAWAL AND RAM SURAT RAM (MaUrya), JJ. Dhananjay Awasthi for the Petitioner. Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal and Suyash Agrawal for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J. - Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A', Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 22.05.2009, passed in Income Tax Appeal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y had not declared any such dividend etc.? 3. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in directing the A.O. to treat the entire sale proceeds as long term capital gains without appreciating that on similar facts of the case of an assessee namely Dr. G.S. Singhania, HUF, has also shown long term capital gains on purchase and sale of shares of M/s Supreme Agro Product Ltd. through Delhi based broker, M/s CMS Securities Ltd. who had admitted before the Investigation Wing of the department that it has taken cash and deposited the same in the account of various members of his family and after transferring the cash in it's accounts, the cheques were issued to the assessee, HUF as well .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... capital gain. 4. The Assessing Officer by order dated 28.12.2006 held that the assessee avoided to appear in person before him, in spite of notice issued for his personal appearance and from the fact that the shares were sold for more than 30 times of the purchase price within a period of one year proved that it was a bogus transaction. Accordingly sale price of the shares of Rs. 42,34,350/- was treated as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The assessee preferred an appeal from the aforesaid order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur who by his order dated 19.01.2009 held that the assessee had filed purchase bills of the shares, letter of transfer dated 20.04.2002, sale bills, accounts of Modern Hold .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and unless the identities of both purchaser and seller is proved, the transactions cannot be regarded as genuine. He further submitted that M/s Supreme Agro Product Ltd. had incurred heavy loss during the A.Y. 2004-05 and in case the value of the assets of the company had increased then no question would have arise for loss to the company. This clearly proves that the transactions were bogus accommodation entries. He further submitted that in similar facts of the case of Dr. G.S. Singhania, HUF, who had also shown long term capital gains on purchase and sale of shares of M/s Supreme Agro Product Ltd. the Tribunal has disbelieved that transactions of the sale of the share, in the present case also sale of the shares of same company was invo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. The CIT (A) after considering entire evidence of record found that purchase and sale transactions were valid and the findings do not suffer from any illegality. He further submitted that before the Tribunal appeals of the assessee and Shri Akash Goenka were decided by a common judgment. The Revenue filed Income Tax Appeal (Defective) No. 261 of 2009 in the case of Shri Akash Goenka which has been dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 18.11.2010 and thus judgment of the Tribunal has been upheld and this appeal is also liable to be dismissed. 7. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties. The CIT (A) after considering entire evidence of record found that purchase and sale transactions were proved. He further foun .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates