9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Petitioner : Dhananjai Awasthi For the Respondent : R. R. Agrawal ORDER 1. We have heard Sri Dhananjai Awasthi for the appellant-department. Sri R.R. Agrawal appears for the respondent-assessee. 2. This Income Tax Appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the order dated 06.08.2009, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E', New Delhi in Income Tax Appeal No. 2232/Del/2009, relating to the Assessment Year 2005-06. 3. The department-appellant has reframed the following substantial questions of law, for consideration:- "1. Whether the ITAT erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT Appeals without taking cognizance of Rule 46-A of the IT Act and the condi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etails and documents like photocopies of share certificates duly transferred in the name of the assessee, contract notes/bills, receipt and payment by way of banking transactions, confirmed copies of accounts, details with the registrar of companies and income-tax department of the share and broker company. The assessee made payments for the purchase through banking channel ; which is not disputed. Further the sale proceeds received are reflected in bank pass book. Furthermore, the cutting from newspaper showing market rate of share was furnished supporting the sale rate of the shares. The transactions have been entered into by the appellant through the broker and in such transactions the seller and the buyer do not come in contact with e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. We find that the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal have given sufficient reasons for admitting the additional evidence on the conditions laid down in Rule 46-A, and further that the documents were forwarded to AO under Section 46-A vide letter dated 21.5.2008, calling for a remand report, and on which the AO had filed the remand report. Thereafter the CIT (A) recorded the finding that the share transactions were genuine and thus the addition made at Rs.10,62,000/- was liable to be deleted. 8. The department has not challenged the genuineness of the transaction and the findings arrived at, for deleting the addition. 9. After examining the records, we find that the application was made explaining the circumstances in which additional ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
