9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -2007 for assessment year 2005-06. 2. The only common issue in these appeals of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to treat the profit on sale of share as short term capital gains instead of addition made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credits on assessee s unaccounted income introduced in books of account under the guise of non-genuine purchases/sale transaction of shares of M/s. Seagul Leafin Ltd. (SLL for short). For this, Revenue has raised common grounds, except amount in both the appeals. For the sake of brevity, we are reproducing the grounds as raised by Revenue in ITA No.3322/Ahd/2008 and decided the issue as under:- (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39,49,008/- on the purchase and sale of shares of SLL and paid tax @ 10% u/s.111 of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 49.66.501/- as unexplained credits u/s.68 of the Act by giving reasoning that the assessee was requested to furnish confirmation from broker, Rajesh N Javeri, through whom so-called shares of SLL were claimed to have been purchased. But the assessee could not furnish any confirmatory letter before the AO and thereby the genuineness of purchase and sale transaction in respect of shares of SLL is not verifiable. The assessee has claimed to have purchased 1,66,500 shares of SLL at ₹ 10,17,493/- on 23-09-2004 and has claimed to have sold such shares to M/s. Grishma Securities Pvt Ltd. at ₹ 49,60 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on though purchases were made off market. Aggrieved, Revenue came in appeal before Tribunal. 4. Before us Ld.SR-DR Shri K. Madhusdan stated that the CIT(A) has not appreciated that the purchase of shares of SLL was not confirmed by the broker during the course of assessment proceedings as well as broker and client agreement was also not furnished in spite of specific and repeated requests made by AO to assessee. The CIT(A) has not appreciated that the assessee has failed to furnish reasons for delay of four months in crediting Demant account of the assessee which suggest that the assessee was getting delivery of the shares on the day on which assessee had sold the shares. The CIT(A) has not appreciated that the assessee had failed to fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion copy of BSC regarding transaction of SLL share is enclosed at page 30. Similarly, before us the assessee has produced the ledger account of Rajesh N Zevari, the broker to whom the transaction was entered. Similarly, the buills of Rajesh N Zevari are enclosed at paper book at page 8-9. It is allegation of the Revenue that these documents were not' produced before the Assessing Officer at the stage of assessment, accordingly, these documents require verification. Even the assessee could not furnish the correct address of the Broker to confirm these transactions. In view of these facts and in the interest of justice we are of the view that the entire issue requires re-verification at the level of the Assessing Officer, without any emba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
