9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the AR before us was never alleged before the Revenue Authorities when the matter was before them. In this situation we do not have any other option but to confirm the orders of the Revenue Authorities in the case of all the assessee because the AO as well as the CIT(A) have arrived at their respective decisions after considering the issues in the appeal in detail and there is nothing before us to disturb their findings. Accordingly we hereby confirm the Order of the Ld.Revenue Authorities on this issue. Thus the first ground raised by the assessees herein above in all the appeals are held against the assessee. - I.T.A.No.1413/CHNY/2018, I.T.A.No.1414/CHNY/2018, I.T.A.No.1415/CHNY/2018, I.T.A.No.1416/CHNY/2018, I.T.A.No.1417/CHNY/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA 1418 of 2018 Smt Sampatti Agarwal ITA No.187/CIT(A)- 12/2016-17 28.02.2018 ITA 1419 of 2018 Shri Rajnish Agarwal ITA No.184/CIT(A)- 12/2016-17 27.02.2018 ITA 1420 of 2018 Shri Pankaj Kumar Agarwal ITA No.188/CIT(A)- 12/2016-17 26.02.2018 Since the issues in all these appeals are identical, they have been taken up for hearing together and disposed off by this common order. 2. The assessees have raised several identical grounds in their appeals however the following grounds were argued before us at the time of hearing:- (i) Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rwal in ITA No.1419/Chny/2018 the assessee has raised the ground that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the Ld.AO who had not allowed the benefit of set-off of losses on the sale of shares amounting to ₹ 6,01,730/- while computing the total income. (v) The assessees object to the levy of interest U/s.234B 234C of the Act. 3. The brief facts in all these appeals are that the assessees cases were selected for scrutiny and orders were passed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016, wherein the Ld.AO treated the purchase and sale of shares of M/s. SRK Industries Ltd., as sham transaction and thereby the claim of exemption U/s.10(38) of the Act, with respect to the Long Term Capital Gain earned by the assessees on thos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns while deciding the cases against the assessees:- (i) The Hon ble Apex Court in the case Sumathi Dayal reported in 214 ITR 801, it was held that In our opinion, the majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities has rightly concluded that the appellant s claim about the amount being her winning from races is not genuine. It cannot be said that the explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts has been rejected unreasonably and that the finding that the said amounts are income of the appellant from other sources is based on evidence. (ii) The Hon ble Apex Court in the case M/s. Durga Prasad More reported in 82 ITR 540, it was held that Science has not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Revenue Authorities that the transaction was genuine. Further the Ld.AR could not successfully controvert to any of the findings of the Ld.Revenue Authorities before us which are against the assessees. Instead the Ld.AR has only come out with the plea that the assessees were not provided with opportunity of cross-examining the witness, the investigation report was not furnished and proper opportunity was not provided of being heard. However we find that all these arguments raised by the Ld.AR before us was never alleged before the Ld.Revenue Authorities when the matter was before them. In this situation we do not have any other option but to confirm the orders of the Ld.Revenue Authorities in the case of all the assessees because the Ld.AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
