9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been carried out. It is in that view of the matter, that the learned CIT(A) held that income earned in the bogus share transaction as ‘Income from Other Sources’. Even before us, no evidence has been brought on record to controvert the findings rendered by the learned CIT(A). In these peculiar facts and circumstances of this case we find no reason to interfere with the findings rendered by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and therefore uphold the same - Decided against assessee - ITA No. 3295/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-10-2016 - Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain , Judicial Member For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Ravinder Sindhu ORDER Per Jason P. Boaz, A.M. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emained with the main broker as there were no instructions for the clients to take delivery. It was also submitted by sub-broker that it had not maintained any demat account of the clients. After considering the material on record, the AO observed that the income from share transaction had to be considered either as speculation or normal business income but since there was no evidence of delivery, the AO treated the income as speculation income. In appeal CIT(A) observed that sub-broker had stated that the shares remained with main broker and from this he concluded that delivery had been taken by the main broker which has to be considered as delivery by the assessee. CIT(A) also observed that there was no dispute that delivery had been take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed. 3.2.8 As per ITAT order in the case of appellant and the operative part reproduced in para 3.1.2 of this order the appellant was to lead evidence in support of his claim that delivery of the shares was not in dispute and that the delivery was taken and given. Since no verifiable evidence in support of delivery has been produced and even the name and address of the main broker has not been given to facilitate the enquiry and also in view of the aforesaid orders of ITAT in the case of Mukesh Choksi group, it is hereby held that no genuine transaction in shares was ever done by the appellant and therefore the question of any delivery and evidence in support thereof does not arise. Therefore, though the AO in this case has assessed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence not available before the A.O. during the course of hearing at the time of assessment. 3.2 The case was fixed for hearing on various dates, but on all these days, either none was present for the assessee or adjournment was sought for by the learned counsel for the assessee on various grounds. Even notice issued by RPAD has been returned back unserved. On one occasion adjournment was sought by the learned D.R. When the case was called for hearing on 26.10.2016, none was present on behalf of the assessee, but the learned D.R. was present and ready to argue the case for Revenue. In the circumstances as mentioned above, we are of the view that the assessee does not appear to be interested in pursuing this appeal seriously. In that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee but was to be assessed as income from other sources. It was prayed that inspite of the assessee being provided many opportunities of hearing before the Tribunal, since she was unable to bring any material evidence on record to controvert the findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue, the assessee s appeal be dismissed. 3.5.1 We have heard the learned D.R. for Revenue at length and perused and carefully considered the orders of the authorities below to elicit the views and contentions of both the assessee and the Revenue. The learned CIT(A) has considered the submissions of the assessee and views of the AO in the impugned order. In this regard it would be in the fitness of things to extract hereunder the relevant findings rendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned CIT(A) has judiciously followed the directions of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in rendering his finding. In the case on hand, the assessee was directed by the Tribunal to lead evidence in support of her claim that delivery of the shares was infact taken and given. However, it is seen that inspite of being afforded opportunities in this regard, the assessee failed to bring on record any basic verifiable evidence to support the claim that delivery of shares had taken place. The assessee failed to give even the name and address of the main broker so that enquiries/verification as to the genuineness of the assessee s claim could have been carried out. It is in that view of the matter, that the learned CIT(A) held that income earne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
