9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, we mention the contentions of the Ld. counsel for the applicant, in Part-II, the submissions of the Ld. DR and in Part-III, the reasons for our decision. I 2. The contentions of the Ld. counsel follow the written submission dated 28.02.2019 filed by the applicant before the Tribunal. Therefore, we refer below the said written submission. It is submitted that the ITAT while adjudicating the ground No. 1 (AY 2006-07) against the appellant have at page No. 8 to 11 at para No. 7.1 referred and discussed the case laws relied upon by the assessee, however, not considered the propositions laid down therein in light of the facts of the case while drawing the conclusion. It is stated that the ITAT at page No. 11 to 12 at para No. 7.2/7.3 has d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant. The Ld. counsel submits that the rule of uniformity in treatment and consistency of the appellant ought to have been followed considering the facts that in appellant's own case, with identical facts of repetitive transactions, the income from sale of shares have been treated as 'capital gains' and not 'business income' namely (i) AY 2007- 08 : (a) order u/s 143(3) dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the STCG with repetitive transactions as 'Capital Gains', (b) order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2014 passed by the same Assessing Officer treating the STCG as 'business income'. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal and the Department appeal was dismissed by the ITAT, (ii) AY 2010-11 : order u/s 153A r.w.s. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the doctrine of res judicata or estoppel by record does not apply to AO's decisions. A finding or decision of the income tax authorities in one year may be departed from in a subsequent year. For AY 2006-07 we found that there are repetitive transactions of purchase and sale by the assessee in the scripts of Bharati Shipyard and Sah Petro. The details are as under : Sr. No. Name of the company No. of shares Date of purchase Dale of sale Book Gains (Rs.) 1 Bharati Shipyard 1700 19.09.2005 28.09.2005 8410 2 Bharati Shipyard 3300 19.09.2005 23.12.2005 -72422 3 Bharati Shipyard 2700 01.09.2005 23.12.2005 -62534 4 Bharati Shipyard 9000 11.11.2005 23.12.2005 173056 5. Bharati Shipyard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2007 55,524 7 Orbitco 2000 25.04 2007 30.05.2007 131,064 e Orbitco 1000 25.04.2007 22.06.2007 77,534 9 Orbit Corp 1000 09.08.2007 06.09.2007 39,610 10 JSW Steel Ltd. 500 01.07.2007 10.07.2007 11,921 11 JSW Steel Ltd. 500 21.08.2007 03.10.2007 132,702 12 JSW Steel Ltd. 750 21.08.2007 10.10.2007 203,932 13 Sesa Goa Ltd. 250 27.08.2007 29.08.2007 26,296 14 Sesa Goa Ltd. 250 27.08.2007 03.10.2007 223,792 15 Sesa Goa Ltd. 250 11.09.2007 03.10.2007 158,104 16 Sesa Goa Ltd. 750 11.09.2007 05.10.2007 576,426 17 K.S Oils Ltd. 5000 25.05.2007 30.10.2007 188,412 18 K.S Oils Ltd. 5000 01.11.2007 14.12.2007 64,306 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [AIR 1970 SC 1273] that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. It is a settled law that the Tribunal has no power to review its order in the garb of section 254(2) of the Act as held in CIT v. Globe Transport Corpn. [1992] 195 ITR 311 (Raj) (HC), CIT v. Roop Narain Sardar Mal [2004] 267 ITR 601 (Raj) (HC), CIT v. Devilal Soni [2004] 271 ITR 566 (Raj) (HC), Jainarain Jeevraj v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 358 (Raj.) (HC), Prajatantra Prachar Samiti v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 160 (Orissa) (HC), CIT v. Jagabandhu Roul [1984] 145 ITR 153 (Orissa) (HC), CIT & Anr. v. ITAT & Anr. [1992] 196 ITR 640 (Orissa) (HC), Shaw Walla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
