9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 382X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HI HIGH COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.2264 /Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 7-10-2015 - SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant by : Shri Sujit Kumar, Sr. DR For The espondent by : Shri Ved Jain, CA And Shri Ashis Goyal, CA ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JM: The appellant ITO Ward 9(2), New Delhi by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the order dated 11.01.2005 passed by Ld. CIT(A) XII, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2004-05 on the ground that: Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition made u/s 68 of the I. T. Act amounting to ₹ 25,10,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit. 2. Briefly stated, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Exclusive Garments and payments were received 011 account of regular business transactions wrt sales and purchases. As the amounts received were through account payee cheques against business transactions and duly recorded in the books of account has not escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. The assessee has sold shares to M/s Exclusive Garments amounting to ₹ 25.10 Lacs. During the year under consideration. Further the assessee has received total payment from the party for the sales of shares thru account payee cheques only. The assessee was having opening stock of ₹ 142.50 Lacs and there were no purchases during the year. Further the assessee is having sales of ₹ 142.85 lacs during the year under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- made by the A.O. by partly allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the revenue has come up before the Tribunal by way of filling the present appeal. 6. Ld. D.R. challenging the impugned order contended that when the assessee has failed to explain the credit of ₹ 40,40,000/-, provisions contained u/s 68 of the Act are attracted and the A.O. has rightly treated the amount of ₹ 25,10,000/- as undisclosed income of the assessee and has relied upon the order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the A.O. 7. However, on the other hand, Ld. A.R. repelled the contention made by Ld. D.R. by contending inter alia that amount of ₹ 25,10,000/- termed as undisclosed income is the sale proceeds of shares sold by the assessee which have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rusal of copies of assessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act, pertaining to Assessment Year 2003-04 lying at pages 45-46 of the ledger book, in ledger account showing purchase of shares qua the Assessment Year 2003-04 lying at page 34 which have never been disputed by the A.O., it is abundantly clear that the assessee had purchased the shares in Assessment Year 2003-04. iii) that when the assessee has sold the shares for ₹ 25,10,000/- undisputedly purchased by him in Assessment Year 2003-04, no adverse inference can be drawn against him. iv) that when purchased shares now sold by the assessee in Assessment Year 2003-04 has been accepted in the preceding Assessment Year, the assessee cannot be p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per Companies Act. The assessee had also demonstrated the purchase and sale of shares over a period of time as seen from the balance sheet. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer has simply acted on the information received from the Investigation Wing without verifying the details furnished by the assessee. The assessee has also produced best possible evidence to support its claim. Consequently the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. ix) that the issue in controversy is squarely covered by the judgements: Vishal Holding and Capital Pvt. Ltd. and Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as the assessee in the instant case has purchased the shares to the tune of ₹ 25,10,000/- in the Assessment Year 2003-04 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
