9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 951X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee made investment with objective to earn income by way of dividend. There are no transactions conducted by the assessee during the shorter period, therefore, authorities below should have followed the principle of consistency and should have accepted the claim of the assessee of capital gains instead of business income. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A .No.-3509/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 20-4-2017 - SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Sh.Somil Aggarwal, Adv. For The Revenue : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhari, Sr.DR ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee has been directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A)-18, New Delhi dated 30.03.2015 for A.Y.2008-09, chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has indulged in mostly day trading where buy and sell transactions are settled during the same day without any delivery. The AO after relying upon several decisions noted that the income of the assessee at ₹ 25,28,437/- is business income instead of short term capital gain as claimed by the assessee. The assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), however, the appeal of the assessee has been disposed. 3. Ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and referred to computation of income, return of income and assessment orders u/s 143(3) for A.Ys. 2006-07 2009-10 in which on these identical facts, the AO accepted the capital gains declared by the assessee. The orders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made u/s. 143(3) of the Act. In all these scrutiny assessments, we find that the assessee s main source of income is from speculation income, Short Term Capital gains and income from other sources. Rule of consistency says that on same set of facts, the Revenue authorities should not take a different view. There has to be uniformity in treatment and consistency when the facts and circumstances are identical particularly in the case of the assessee. Our view is fortified by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra). We also find that the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) is heavily based on the fact that the assessee is indulged in intra-day trading of shares. We find that the assessee has shown the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estment. The assessee however filed complete details from pages 36 to 42 of the Paper Book to show that substantial share holding were coming up for from 2006-07 which have been sold In assessment year under appeal. Ld. counsel for the assessee also demonstrated that incase of other transactions either the shares/scrips were held as opening balance from the earlier years or purchased in the year under consideration which have been sold in subsequent year. Therefore, the AO was not justified in recording the finding of fact against the assessee for the purpose of holding that the assessee was indulged in trading activities only. The assessee has been dealing in shares in earlier and in subsequent years and on the identical transaction has sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
