9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. (in short SSL). Revenue has raised common ground except the change in the amounts in both the appeals. For the sake of brevity we reproduce the ground raised by the Revenue in ITA No.1753/Ahd/2012 mentioned hereunder :- [1] On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- I, Surat has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 49,66,501/-, without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to prove that this is not an off market deal and submissions have not been made by the assessee in support of the claim u/slllA. [2] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. [3] It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A) may be set-side and that of Assessing Officer may be restored to the above extent. 2. In the case of Reshma R. Jariwala in ITA No.1754/Ahd/2012 addition made by Assessing Officer was Rs. 49,72,760/-. Since the grounds in both the appeals are similar, we therefore, adjudicate ITA No.1753/Ahd/2012 and the decision taken in this appeal will apply to ITA No.1754/Ahd/2012. 3. ITA No.1753/Ahd/2012 for Asst. Year 2005-06. 3.1 Briefly stated facts are that asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of STT and hence, the benefit of concessional rate of income-tax cannot be allowed. 11 In view of the above findings, the assessee's claim is rejected and the sum credited in the books of accounts of Rs. 49,66,501/- as sale consideration of shares is treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before CIT(A) and ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows in his appellate order :- 6. I have considered the facts of the case and the basis of addition made by AO. There is no need to repeat the facts as my predecessor CIT(A) vide his order dated 29.07.2008 has already discussed the relevant facts and issues involved in detail and allowed the appeal also. There are no new facts brought on record by AO during assessment proceedings to counter the documents / evidence filed by appellant as directed by Hon'ble ITAT. The AO failed to establish that the appel ant has not been able to fulfill all the conditions as set by Hon'ble ITAT. Moreover, the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of Smt. Ritaben Panwala and Smt. Mitaben Panwala vide order dated 31.05.2011 in ITA No.4082 & 4083/Ahd/2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rough M/s Rajesh N. Zaveri (Ahmedabad Stock Exchange) and paid for the purchase by account payee cheque, transferred the purchased shares in the demat account and thereafter sold the shares through M/s Grishma Securities P. Ltd., a Member of Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE)registered by SEBI, received sale consideration through bank account and also placed on record the proof that SSL was listed with BSE. Ld. AR further submitted that in all aspects the assessee has fulfilled the conditions laid down in the provisions of section 111A of the Act and therefore, the short term capital gains which is chargeable to tax @ 10% and also mentioned that Assessing Officer was not correct in making the additions u/s 68 of the Act as all the informations about the source of credit in the form of shares was available and genuineness, identity, creditworthiness of the transactions was also proved with supporting evidences. Ld. AR further submitted that similar issue about sale of shares of SSL was dealt by the Tribunal in ITA No.4082/Ahd/2008 for Asst. Year 2005-06 in the case of ACIT vs. Ritabn Bhupendra Panwala vide order dated 31.5.2011 and appeal of Revenue was dismissed and the order of ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce in the order o Ld. CIT(A) passed on 16.10.2008 wherein he has treated the sum of Rs. 3,654.79 as STT on the basis of certificate and bills issued by the broker. For the sake of convenience, we refer to section 111A as under: "111A: (1) Where the total income of an assessee includes any income chargeable under ht head "capital gains"' arising form the transfer of a short term capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund and- (a) the transaction of sale of such equity share or unit is entered into on or after the date on which Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 comes into force; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax under that chapter; The tax payable by the assessee on the total income shall be the aggregate ofITA (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on such short term capital gains at the rate of [fifteen] per cent; and (ii) the amount of income tax payable on the balance amount of the total income as if such balance amount were the total income of the assessee;" .............. ............ From a reading of above section, we find that there are only two conditions to be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ged genuineness accepted by the Ld. CIT(A). The revenue has only challenged that no STT has been paid on sale of shares by Garishma Securities Pvt. Ltd. which we have held against the revenue as above. We, accordingly do not find any reason to take a different view. As a result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 12. From going through the above decision of the Tribunal, we find that the issue is verbatim similar so much so that details of shares have been sold through M/s Grishma Securities P. Ltd. who also is a broker in the case of assessee through whom equity shares of SSL have been sold. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal and in view of our discussion made above, we do not find any reason to take a different view and interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A). As a result, ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 13. Other grounds are of general nature, which need no adjudication. 14. In ITA No.1754/Ahd/2012 wherein following ground of appeal have been raised by the Revenue :- [1] On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- I, Surat has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 49,72,760/-, without appreciating the fact that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
