9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs of facts against the Assessee about the nature of the transactions of sale of shares of a shell company as sham and the same being taxed as 'undisclosed income' under Section 68. Thus these findings of facts, cannot be said to be perverse in any manner and therefore we do not find any substantial question of law to be arising under Section 260-A - Decided against assessee. - Tax Case Appeal No. 128 of 2019 And C.M.P.No. 3353 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2019 - Dr. Justice Vineet Kothari And Mr. Justice C.V. Karthikeyan For the Appellant : M/s. D.O.Kaviyanathan for M/s. Nathan and Associates For the Respondent : Mr. T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel JUDGMENT DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. This Tax Case Appeal arisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Income Tax Act and was not exempted under Section 10(38) of the Act as claimed by the Assessee. 3. The learned counsel for the Assessee Mr.D.O.Kaviyanathan vehemently urged before us that the Assessee was not given the opportunity of cross examination of the said Mr.Deepak Patwari regarding the sale of the shares by him in the said Company, including the payment of security tax transaction. The said request was brushed aside by the Assessing Authority. It was urged that the tax as imposed on the Assessee under Section 68 of the Act is not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Revenue supported the impugned orders. 5. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and having perused all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the total income of the Assessee as taxable Capital Gain penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 are also initiated for concealing particulars of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. From the order of the CIT Appeals, the non appearance of the Assessee and the relevant extract of the para are as follows:- The case was posted 5 times for hearing. However, the Assessee or his A.R., neither appeared nor filed any written submission as under:- S.No. Date of Notice Date of hearing Remarks 1. 10.04.2017 20.04.2017 Did not appear and did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Technologies Limited in respect of which Long Term Capital Gain is claimed also appear in the data base of the Income Tax Department as Penny Stock Trade. Hence, the claim for Long Term Capital Gains by the Assessee in M/s. Luminairie Technologies Limited., is not acceptable. According, a sum of ₹ 1,03,24,645/- is hereby added to the total income of the Assessee as taxable Capital Gain. 6. Similarly the learned Tribunal has also held that the notice served upon the Assessee was returned unserved as is seen from paragraph No.5 of the order passed of the learned Tribunal. The Assessee seems to have filed a Miscellaneous Application before the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for setting aside the ex-parte order and for condo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities concerned to contradict the case against her, as set up by the Revenue during the course of assessment proceedings. This has resulted in the impugned findings of facts against the Assessee about the nature of the transactions of sale of shares of a shell company as sham and the same being taxed as 'undisclosed income' under Section 68 of the Act. Thus these findings of facts, cannot be said to be perverse in any manner and therefore we do not find any substantial question of law to be arising under Section 260-A of the Act before this Court, requiring our further consideration in this case and hence the appeal filed by the Assessee is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
