9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - the assessee was holding a property in the society Om Dharam Jivan Association and this fact was also admitted by the AO in his remand report. Therefore in our considered view the share certificate issued by the society, Om Dharam Jivan Association, cannot be doubted being closely connected with the impugned property - direct the AO allow the claim to the assessee Short-term capital gain - Assessee in the year under consideration has sold the shares of L T - HELD THAT:- AO during the remand proceedings obtained an information from the broker namely Rajvee stock broking Ltd wherein it was confirmed that the assessee has incurred a loss of ₹ 674/- in respect of sale purchase of the shares of L T. AO in the remand report objected on the admission of the additional evidences on the ground that the case of the assessee does not fall in any of the exception as specified under rule 46A of Income Tax Rule. CIT (A) has observed that the assessee has dealt in 45 scripts but the broker has furnished the details with respect to 6 scripts only. On perusal of the reply of the broker placed on pages 7 and 8 of the paper book we note that the assessee has dealt only in 6 scrip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 5000/- paid by the Appellant for the share certificate of the property and directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute the capital gains of the appellant by adopting the cost of acquisition at ₹ 1,91,000/-. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,65,185/- made by the Assessing Officer for the alleged short term capital gain from dealings in shares. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of appeal. 2. At the outset the learned AR for the assessee submitted that he has been is instructed by the assessee not to press ground No. 1 and 2, therefore we dismiss the same as not pressed. The 2nd issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the disallowance to the extent of ₹5000.00 paid for the share certificate of the property. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessing is an individual who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y way of share certificate obtained from the society namely Om Dharam Jivan Association where the assessee was holding property. As per the assessee, he has incurred an expense of ₹5000 in connection with the impugned property. Therefore he should be allowed deduction for the same. However the AO, found that there is no evidence suggesting that the assessee has incurred ₹5000 in connection with such impugned property. The view taken by the AO was subsequently confirmed by the learned CIT (A). 8.1 However, from the preceding discussion we note that the assessee has filed a share certificate of ₹5000 issued by Om Dharam Jivan Association where the assessee was in possession of the property. To verify the veracity of such certificate, a notice was issued by the AO under section 133(6) of the Act but there was no satisfactory reply from such society. 8.2 In our considered view the claim of the assessee does not depend upon the confirmation from the third party. The assessee as such has furnished share certificate which is primary document mentioning the payment of ₹ 5000.00. This fact has not been doubted by the authorities belo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eated as income of the assessee. Accordingly the assessee claimed that the profit at the most of ₹ 2,250/- can be added to the total income of the assessee. 9.3 The AO in the remand report submitted that the assessee has made transactions in the shares of L T during the year which resulted loss of ₹ 674/- but the same was not shown in the income tax return. The AO also submitted that the assessee has furnished the bank statement for the verification and the confirmation from the broker namely Rajvee Share broking Ltd. 9.4 However, the AO in the remand report also submitted that the assessee has not furnished the confirmation from the Pradeep Enterprises Ltd. 9.5 The assessee in his rejoinder submitted that he had no dealing with M/sPradeep Enterprises Ltd. 9.6 The learned CIT (A) after considering the submission and the remand report has confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: 6.3 Decision It has clearly been stated by the AO that the appellant has not disclosed the share transactions entered into by him in the return of income at all during the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... report was forwarded to the appellant along with the copy of the ledger account submitted u/s. 133(6) before the A.O by M/s. Rajvi Stock Broking, stock broker, the | appellant has not discharged the onus cast on him by the statute. Therefore, the argument of the appellant are not sustainable and therefore rejected. Accordingly the addition made by the A.O of ₹ 5,65,185/- is confirmed. However, it is clarified that although there is no profit in the shares of L T on which addition has been made by the A.O but the fact remains that despite so many opportunities, the appellant has still not disclosed all the share transactions even after the remand report. The appellant is duty bound as per the statute to offer its true and correct income, however, the appellant has miserably failed on this account. As per the information collected in the A.O in the remand report proceedings from share broker M/s. Rajvi Stock Broking Ltd., the appellant has carried out trades in 45 scripts during the year. Even in his submission before me, the appellant has disclosed share transaction in 6 scripts. Therefore, the appellant has not disclosed transactions from 39 scripts. Even ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand report objected on the admission of the additional evidences on the ground that the case of the assessee does not fall in any of the exception as specified under rule 46A of Income Tax Rule. 12.2 However, the learned CIT (A) has observed that the assessee has dealt in 45 scripts but the broker has furnished the details with respect to 6 scripts only. However on perusal of the reply of the broker placed on pages 7 and 8 of the paper book we note that the assessee has dealt only in 6 scripts. As such, the learned CIT (A) has not brought any information on record suggesting that the assessee has dealt in 45 scripts. From the above, we conclude that the assessee has incurred losses on the sale purchase of L T shares amounting to ₹ 674/- and as a whole for all the scripts he has earned a profit of ₹ 2,250/- only. 12.3 Therefore, we hold that there cannot be any addition to the total income of the assessee on account of sale of shares of L T for the reasons as discussed above. 12.4 Regarding the allegation of the learned CIT (A) about the source of investment in the shares, we note that there was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
