9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d against Revenue. - Income Tax Appeal No. - 117 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2013 - Hon'ble Prakash Krishna And Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),JJ. For the Petitioner : A. N. Mahajan/S.C. For the Respondent : S. D. Singh ORDER This appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in three connected Income Tax Appeal No.187/Alld/2009 assessment year 2005-2006.(Smt.Neelam Devi Tulsyan and The Commissioner of Income Tax,Varanasi). The following substantial questions of law have been framed in the memo of appeal: (1) "Whether the CIT rightly invoked the statutory provisions of Section 263 of the Act as the assessment so made by the A.O was not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Assessing Officer rejected the claim of the assessee so far as capital gain is concerned. The assessment order was confirmed in appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax(A). The matter was carried further in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found that the Department did not dispute the purchases of these shares in the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee with regard to capital gains on the sale of shares of listed companies. The order of the Tribunal has been confirmed in further appeal by this Court. The Tribunal for the relevant assessment year 2005-2006 has followed its earlier judgment given in the preceding assessment year and held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presumptions and assumptions. The other aspect of the case is that at no stage, except doubting the sale transactions, the Department doubted the documents which were produced by the assessee to substantiate his claim with regard to capital gains. This being so, the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has rightly found that the transactions in question are genuine transactions. It is a finding of fact based on appraisal of evidence." The learned standing counsel for the Department could not point out any distinguishable feature. We therefore, respectfully following the judgment given by this Court in Income Tax Appeal Defective No.232 of 2009 (Commissioner of Income Tax versus Atma Ram Tulsyan) find no merit in the appeal. No substanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
