9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Stock-broking firms though through off-line deals. Assessees had produced brokers’ bill for the purchases. It might be true that assessees had purchased such shares at a rate lower than what was quoted in the market, but this, in my opinion would not be sufficient to treat the purchases to be bogus, when the prices were paid and concerned stock-brokers had delivered the shares. Assessees had also got the shares dematised later. Statement given by a party who was totally unrelated to the assessees could not be taken as evidence for disbelieving the evidence furnished by the assessees. Therefore denial of the claim u/s.10(38) of the Act, was not warranted. Additions made are deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king Ltd, Mumbai 2 Mahendra Kumar Dharmichand Chajjed 2008-09 7,63,987 3,600 (FACT Enterprises) Alliance Intermediaries and Network P. Ltd, Mumbai 3 Gauthamchand Dharmichand Chajjed 2008-09 15,27,224 4,200 (FACT Enterprises) Durga Prasad & Co., 4 Mahendra Kumar Dharmichand Chajjed 2009-10 1,09,400 3,600 (FACT Enterprises) Alliance Intermediaries and Network P. Ltd, Mumbai 5 Gauthamchand Dharmichand Chajjed 2009-10 8,60,945 800 (FACT Enterprises) 1,00,000 (Confir etro) Durga Prasad & Co., 6 Gauthamchand Dharmichand Chajjed 2010-11 22,01,486 6,500 (Mahapol y) 15,000 (Channel guide) Vijay Bhagwan Das & Co., Assessees had sold either full or part of their holding in shares during the impugned assessment years givi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressed. According to him the purchase bill issued by the share-broking funds were not verifiable since the assesssees could not produce ledger the extract from the brokers. Further as per the AO, shares were acquired for much lower rate than the market rates and this was not believable. As an example, AO noted that shares of FACT Enterprises were purchased at the rate of ₹ 2/- per share by the assessees when the quoted rate was ₹ 19.80, on the date of purchase. According to the AO assessees could not prove the sale of shares. He denied the claim of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act. 05. Aggrieved assessees moved in appeal before the CIT (A). Argument of the assessee was that sworn statement of Shri. Mukesh Chokshi had nothing to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal had held that purchase of shares could not be disbelieved and could not be considered as bogus and this view was upheld by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. 08. Per contra, Ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities. 09. I have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. Only reason why the AO disbelieved the purchase of shares by the assessees was that Shri. Mukesh Chokshi had given a statement in which he had mentioned providing accommodation entries to various persons in India, which included the names of the assessees along with the PAN. However, none of the assessees had purchased shares from the said person. They had purchased shares from Stock-broking firms though through off-line deals. Assessees had produced br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rivate Limited during the course of a search at the business premises of Mahasagar Securities Private Limited. The Commissioner of Income Tax while setting aside the finding given by the Assessing Authority held that whatever transaction took place, was genuine and in accordance with the norms of SEBI. It was also held that the statement given by Mr. Mukesh Choksi could have not been read against the assessee being unconfronted. The appeal preferred by the Revenue giving challenge to the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur also came to be dismissed by the judgment impugned. The learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal after examining the arguments advanced and also the record arrived at the conclusion that the purch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
