9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue which the Revenue is to take up with Mr. and Mrs.Bhale. The purchasers of shares cannot be held responsible for default made by the vendors of shares in filing their return of income and not disclosing consideration received by them for sale of their shares. It is also to be borne in mind that the Assessing Officer completely ignored the confirmation letter given by vendors of 1665 shares. Further fact that the respondent – assessee had paid the consideration for the sale of 1665 shares by account payee cheques is also significant. It is also pertinent to note that before the Tribunal the grievance of the revenue is that the CIT (A) has accepted explanation of the respondent – assessee. It has been correctly observed by the Tribunal tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim of Long Term Capital Gain ignoring the fact that the cost of Acquisition of Shares was not proved by the assessee for claim for total purchase of 1665 shares of M/s.Lavassa Corporation Limited before claiming Long Term Capital Gain ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of assessee regarding the sale of shares of M/s.Lavassa Corporation Ltd. without appreciating the fact that Share Transfer Register did not reflect the transfer of shares in Financial Year 2004-05 ? 3. The only question which arises in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. By the order dated 17th October, 2008, the CIT(A) allowed the respondent-assessee's appeal on consideration of facts in detail. It held that the basis of the Assessing Officer not accepting the cost and the date of purchase of 1665 equity shares from Mr. and Mrs. Bhale was not acceptable in view of explanation offered by the respondent - assessee. In the explanation, the respondent assessee's claim of having purchased the shares during the assessment year 2002-03 and the cost of acquisition was taken at ₹ 41.25 lakhs for computation of capital gains on its sale. 5. Being aggrieved, the Revenue carried the issue in appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order of the Tribunal upheld the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 7. We find that the respondent assessee has originally in its computation of capital gains indicated the amount of ₹ 1.38 crores as consideration paid to acquire 1665 shares of Lavasa Corporation Ltd. from Mr. and Mrs. Bhale. The same was explained by the respondent assessee to the CIT (A) that while computing the capital gains it had inadvertently included payment of ₹ 1 crore made to acquire 5,00,000 preference shares which merged in the consideration paid to acquire 1665 shares of Yashomala (now Lavasa Corporation Ltd.). This explanation was found satisfactory by the CIT (A) as well as by the Tribunal. The fact that Mr. and Mrs.Bhale, the vendors of 1665 shares to the respondent assessee had not disclosed the recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
