9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar Finvest Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 2002- 03 at 0.15% of various dubious transaction as an entry provider was examined in the case of M/s. Goldstar (Pvt.) Ltd. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(AO has erred in not applying Rule 46A of the IT Rules 1962 for cross examine of the Shri Mukesh Chokshi 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering income of Rs. 27,33,262j - fall under the head Capital gain instead of income fall u/s. 68 of the IT Act, 1961 4. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in considering the deduction u/s. 54F as allowable. 5. The appellant prays that the order the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t she had not filed return of income for 2003-04, so the AO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 30.3.2010.In response to notice,she filed her return on 10.8.2010 declaring total income at Rs. 7.04 lacs.The AO completed the assessment on 15.12.2010 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act,determining the income of the assessee at Rs. 27. 69 lacs. 3.Effective ground of appeal is about allowing relief to the assessee about the transactions entered into with Mahasagar Securities group.During the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 27,33,262/-u/s. 68 of the Act relating to sale of shares in following four scrips: Name of scrip Sale consideration(Rs.) Buniyad chemicals Ltd. 6.28 lacs NE Electronics Ltd. 7.79 lacs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the fraudulent nature of transactions.The AO did not make any comment about the remaining two scrips but added the capital gains arising from those scrips to the total income of the assessee.Finally,the AO taxed the sale proceeds of all the above referred four scrips,as income from unexplained sources u/s. 68 of the Act. 4.Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) and made elaborate submissions before him. After considering the submissions of the assessee and the assessment order the FAA held that the assessee had purchased 9000 shares of Buniyad chemicals Ltd. on 31.6.2001 and sold them on 3.10.2002, at the folio nos. and the copies of share certificates were submitted ,th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2001 and 28.6.2001 respectively that those shares were sold 30.9.2001,that the transactions were through stock exchange,that the transactions were also not through GFPL, that no further adverse evidence had been placed on record by the AO,that the shares had been demated and sold, that the sale proceeds were received by cheques,that the sale proceeds could not be taxed as income from other sources or as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act 5.Before us,the Departmental Representative(DR)supported the order of the AO and stated that the investigation wing of the department had found that the assessee had entered into transactions with the Mukesh Choksi group who was providing accommodation entries.Authorised Representative (AR)argued that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
