9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 1150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not been shown to be illegal, erroneous or perverse by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has also not been able to produce any material on record to controvert the said findings. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 18 of 2017 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 16-2-2017 - Ajay Kumar Mittal And Ramendra Jain, JJ. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, Act ) against the order dated 20.07.2016, Annexure A-III, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (in short, the Tribunal ) in ITA No.129(Asr)/2014, for the Assessment Year 2008-09, claiming follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh a broker of Karol Bagh, New Delhi at a price of ₹ 11/- per share. The amount of ₹ 11 lakhs was claimed to have been paid out of cash in hand available with the assessee for the purchase of these shares. It was claimed that the shares transferred in name of assessee were subsequently sold during the year relevant to the assessment year under assessment for ₹ 2,89,94,516. The assessee had shown long term capital gain of ₹ 2,78,26,685/- on the sale of these shares. The assessee could not substantiate the genuineness of the said share transaction. He was not even able to prove the source of investment of ₹ 11 lakhs in the purchase of these shares. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 17.08.2012, Annexure A-I, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of shares on 23.10.2007. The said amount had been disclosed by the assessee in his return of income and exemption was claimed accordingly. Thus, the addition being without any logical basis was directed to be deleted. The relevant findings recorded by the CIT(A) in this regard read thus:- I have considered the facts of the case, the basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer, the arguments of the AR during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings and the comments of the Assessing Officer in the remand report. It is seen that the impugned purchase of shares allegedly effected in the financial year 2006-07 for an amount of ₹ 11 lakhs and the said shares had been physically transferred in favour of the appeallant in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the search proceedings did not lead to recovery of any incriminating evidence to show that the transaction of purchase of share was arranged as suspected by the Assessing Officer. It is also seen that no post search enquiries on the issue had been conducted in the form of recording the statement of broker so as to bring on record any evidence of the said transaction being an accommodation entry. This is to mean that just because assessee has been found to be earning huge amounts of long term capital gain on sale of shares, the same has been held to be sham transaction merely on the ground of same being unlikely in the given circumstances. The Assessing Officer, in the remand report has not been able to contradict any of the facts regardi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was received through banking channels. All the documentary evidence being in favour of assessee, the deletion of the addition made by the CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the assessee had purchased shares in the month of April/May, 2006 as noted by the learned CIT(A) in his order at page-4. The shares were purchased in Assessment year 2006-07. Further the shaes were got dematerialized and the same were created in the account of assessee maintained with HDFC bank. The assessee also received dividend on such shares on 23.10.2007 and such dividend was claimed as exempt and Assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
