9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) in upholding the stand of the Assessing Officer that the entire consideration on sale of shares of Rs. 3,94,135/- was assessable as income from undisclosed sources. 3. In brief, the relevant facts are that the assessee is an individual, who filed her return of income which, inter-alia, included long term capital gain and short term capital gain on sale and purchase of shares and securities. In an assessment finalized under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 30/12/2014, the Assessing Officer accepted the long term capital gain as well as short term capital gain as declared by the assessee, except the long term capital gain declared on the sale of shares of M/s. Buniyad Chemicals, amounting to Rs. 3,49,720/-. 3.1 The appellant had claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain amount of commission totalling to Rs. 3,94,135/- was added as income from undisclosed sources. The said addition has also been sustained by the CIT(A) against which assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. In the above background, the first and foremost plea raised by the Ld. Representative for the assessee is that in similar circumstances, the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has deleted the additions made by the Department by solely relying on the statement of Mr. Mukesh Choksi. In this context, the following decisions have been relied upon:- (i) ACIT vs. Ravindra Kumar Toshniwal,ITA No.1356/mum/2010, order Dated 13/03/2013. (ii) Smt. Hamida J.Rattorsey vs. DCIT, ITA No.5069/Mum/2009, order dated 01/08/2012 (iii) Smt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee vehemently pointed out that the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the submissions put-forth by the assessee and instead relying on certain decisions of the Tribunal, which have been rendered in different circumstances. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative reiterated the reasoning taken by the Assessing Officer in support of the case of the Revenue, which are not being repeated since I have already noted the same in Para-3.1 above. 6. Having considered the rival stands, I find that the entire case of the Revenue rests on a statement purported to have been tendered by one Mr. Mukesh Choksi to the Investigation wing of the Department. On the strength of such statement the Assessing Officer canvassed that the transactions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... observed that merely because a transaction was not undertaken on the floor of Stock Exchange is no ground to doubt its veracity. In the present case too emphasis has been on the fact that the impugned transaction was an off- market transaction. Having regard to the precedent in the case of the order of the Tribunal dated 24/10/2010 in the case of Ravindra Kumar Toshniwal (supra), I find no reason to uphold the stand of the Revenue. 6.2 Secondly, in the case of Shri Ravindra Kumar Toshniwal(supra), for assessment year 2006-07 vide order dated 13/03/2013, the Tribunal considered the sale and purchase of shares of M/s. Buniyad Chemicals which is also the case before me, wherein also the Tribunal differed with the Assessing Officer and instea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
