9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 519X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NGALORE] and Pukhraj Hasmuchlal [2018 (1) TMI 1406 - ITAT BANGALORE] Following the aforesaid orders (supra), we set aside the orders of the AO and restore the matter of treatment of profit declared on sale of shares, claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, to the file of the AO to re-adjudicate the issue afresh; after making available to the assessee for rebuttal all documents; including Statements, Investigation Reports, etc., relied upon by Revenue for making the additions/disallowances and providing adequate opportunity to the assessee for cross-examination of persons whose statements are being relied upon. It is accordingly ordered. Consequently, ground No. 2 is disposed off as above. - ITA No.596/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer had erred in passing the order in the manner passed by him and the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the same. The impugned orders being bad in law, void ab-initio are required to be quashed. 2. In any case the order passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play, especially in the absence of the cross examinations of the persons whose averments are sought to be relied upon by the Assessing Officer while passing the order, makes the order totally bad in law and liable to be cancelled. 2 In any case and without prejudice, the learned Assessing Officer had erred in making addition of ₹ 1,48,25,361/ - to the income of the appellant and the learned CIT (A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITAT, Kolkata Bench in its order in ITA No. 2394/Kol/2017 in the case of Prakash Chand Butoria. It is submitted that in the cited case (supra) also, the assessee, an individual, filed his return of income claiming income on sale of shares as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the receipt of sale consideration as unaccounted income and made an addition u/s 68 of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the AO s order. However, on further appeal, the ITAT, Kolkata Bench allowed the assessee s appeal observing that the addition was unsustainable since the AO made the addition in a routine and mechanized manner, merely on suspicions based on Report of enquiries made by the Investigation Directorate of DIT, Kolka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot dispute the proposition put forth by the ld. DR for restoring this issue to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication. 3.5 We have heard both parties and perused and carefully considered the material on record; including the judicial decisions cited and the orders of the authorities below. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the circumstances that the assessee specifically requested for cross-examination of the deponents whose statements were the basis of addition by the AO and also the report of the Investigation Directorate, Kolkata for rebuttal; from the judicial decisions cited, we find that the issue for consideration is squarely covered by the orders of the Bengaluru ITAT in the cases of Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
