9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 547X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the bank statement placed in the paper book. Thus we hold that the authorities below have made the addition for the sale of shares of TOL on wrong assumption of facts. On a question to the ld. DR about the source of information for the sale of shares of TOL in the AY 2001- 02 (under consideration), he failed to bring anything on record contrary to the arguments advanced by the ld. AR for the assessee. We also find that the authorities below were in possession of the information about the brokers involved in the sale and purchase of shares but none of them has taken any confirmation from them. There was no ambiguity in the direction of the ITAT as discussed above to verify the purchase and sale of shares of TOL but the AO in his assessment order has held that the assessee has not declared the sale of shares of M/s ATN International Ltd. resulting bogus long-term capital gain of 3,64,422.00 though there was no such direction in the order of the ITAT. Therefore, we are of the view that the authorities below have exceeded the direction issued by the ITAT which is unwanted. We are not convinced with the findings of the Ld. CIT (A) and accordingly direct the AO to delete t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e alleged sale of shares on the basis of it being highly possible , which indicates presumptions and assumptions made by the Ld AO and not following the direction by Hon ITAT to verify the records of AY- 2007-08 while making the addition in the two Assesment Years, which are six years apart, without recognizing the fact that the same amounts to double taxation, which is against the principles of natural justice. 1.4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in not considering the Appellant submission that in fact it is highly impossible that the Sale Value of two different scripts i.e. Shares of ATh lntrl and Tripex Overseas, be same to the last rupee i.e. ₹ 3,86,192/-. 1.5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the Order of Ld AO by not appreciating the clinching fact being there was only one receipt and credit in Bank Account of the Appellant by cheque deposit of ₹ 3,86, 192/- from sale of Shares, which was debited as cheque was returned / bounced and same was re-deposited and re-credited. 1.6. The Ld CIT-(A) failed to appreciate the fact the Ld AO has incorrectly stated in the Assessment Order that the Appellant failed to furnish the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares of Tripex Overseas Ltd. and if he finds that the sale proceeds of shares of Tripex Overseas Ltd. had already been taxed in A.Y 2007-08, the same should not be again added in A.Y 2001-02 under consideration. We direct accordingly. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes. MA NO. 213/Mum/2015 5. As the facts in A.Y 2001-02 (ITA No. 7526/Mum/2013) are pari materia to the facts in A.Y 2001-02 (ITA No. 5539/Mum/2012), following the same reasoning given hereinabove, we direct the AO to verify the assessment records for A.Y 2007-08 and decide accordingly. 6. In result, both the Miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are allowed in part for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th March, 2016. From the above, it is clear that the ITAT directed the AO to look into the following facts: i. Whether there is an addition on account of sale of shares of Tripex Overseas Ltd. (for short TOL) in the AY 2007-08. ii. If yes, then the same shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the absence of details filed by the assessee before the AO as well as in the appeal proceedings, it is to be concluded that there is no fault in the order of AO and the appeal of assesse is, therefore, not valid and hence dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The Ld. AR before us filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 41 and submitted that the assessee never had the shares of TOL in the year under consideration. Therefore, there is no question of selling such shares in the year under consideration. The ld. AR further submitted that the shares of TOL were sold in the AY 2007-08 and the gain has already been taxed. 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the order of authorities below by reiterating the contentions contained in their respective orders. 9. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. It is the 3rd round of litigation before us which is emanating from the order of the ITAT as discussed above. On perusal of the direction of ITAT, the AO was to verify whether the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not declared the sale of shares of M/s ATN International Ltd. resulting bogus long-term capital gain of 3,64,422.00 though there was no such direction in the order of the ITAT. 9.4 Therefore, we are of the view that the authorities below have exceeded the direction issued by the ITAT which is unwanted. In this regard we draw guidance and support from judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in case Union of India and others vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd reported in AIR 1992 SC 711 where it was held as under The High Court has, in our view, rightly criticized this conduct of the Asstt. Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of the authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, Revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Asstt. Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Asstt. Collectors and the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
