9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1477X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - AO observed that on perusal of the sale deed it was found that the assessee has made payment of ₹ 4,30,001/- on the date of Agreement i.e. 22.05.2002 which is before the sale of the shares and the final payment is made on 25.10.2002, which is after 2 months of sale proceeds received. The assessee deposited the alleged sale price of the shares in his regular account for earning income therefrom and not deposited the same in the Specific Account for the Capital Gains and utilised the same for other purposes. Thus there is no proof with the assessee to show that the same amount of sale proceeds were utilised for the purchase of house property. On this ground also, the assessee s claim cannot be allowed. The appellant has grossly failed to substantiate his claim for grant of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The appellant has not filed any sort of document in support of his claim for investment in a residential house. The appellant has also failed to substantiate the transaction of purchase and sale of the shares without any documentary evidences. therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the AO. This ground is dismissed accordingly, both on merits and legality. - I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SS : Purchase value ₹ 69,336/- ₹ 22,38,848/- LESS : Investment in purchase Of house. ₹ 27,01,600/- CAPITAL GAIN. Rs. NIL. The assessee has sold shares of Suma finance and Investment Ltd. on 12- 07-2002 for ₹ 13,30,194/- and on 10-09-2002 for ₹ 4,77,035/- through SJ Capital Ltd., 439/A, Gali Sadawalim Pooth Khurd, New Delhi and on 05-08- 2002 for ₹ 5,04,556/- through MKM Finsec Pvt. Ltd. Total ₹ 23,11,785/-. The statements of Shri Mahesh Garg, Director of SJ Capital Ltd. was recorded on 10-09-2003 and he stated that he used to issue accommodation entries by taking cash including commission. Shri Mahesh Batra, Director, MKM Finsec Pvt. Ltd. has also stated in his statement that his company gives accommodation entries by accepting cash and nominal commission. In response to notices u/s 143(2), Shri Ashok Agrawal, CA attended before the AO and explained the case. During the course of hearing the assessee filed the copy of bank account, capital account and copies of share certificates. Then assessee s counsel w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TOTAL 22,96,400.00 The assessee alleged to have spent the above amount on purchase of house property as under : Date Particulars CHQ. NO. Amount. 06.06.2002 House purchase 559159 430,001.00 24.09.2002 House purchase 315487 1000,000.00 24.10.2002 Stamp duty paid in cash 243,020.00 24.10.2002 Registration expenses paid 20,380.00 25.10.2002 Other expenses paid out 8,199.00 25.10.2002 House purchase 315489 1000,000.00 TOTAL Rs. 27,01,600.00 However, the AO observed that on perusal of the sale deed it was found that the assessee has made payment of ₹ 4,30,001/- on the date of Agreeme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouse was deposited in the specified asset, as stipulated u/s 54F of the Act. 6.4 Thus, the appellant has grossly failed to substantiate his claim for grant of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The appellant has not filed any sort of document in support of his claim for investment in a residential house. The appellant has also failed to substantiate the transaction of purchase and sale of the shares without any documentary evidences. I, therefore, decline to interfere with the order of the AO. This ground is dismissed accordingly, both on merits and legality. 5. Further learned CIT(Appeals) also rejected the assessee s claim of disallowance of the purchase value of shares amounting to ₹ 69,336/- from the sale proceeds and also bank charges amounting to ₹ 3601/-. 6. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 7. I have heard the learned D.R. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, in my considered opinion, the issue can be adjudicated by hearing the learned D.R. and perusing the records. 8. Upon careful consideration I find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has passed an elaborate and well reasoned order. The AO has clearly brought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the garb of unjustified share application money. In the present case I find that there is no justification whatsoever that the shares of an unknown company of ₹ 5/- can be sold within two years time at ₹ 485/- without there being any reason on record. This unexplained spurt in the value of unknown company shares is beyond preponderance of probability. It has been held by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Durga Prasad Mor and Sumati Dayal that the test of human probabilities have also to be applied by the authorities below. In the case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801, it was held that during the year 1970-71 (pertaining to the assessment year 1971-72) between April 6, 1970, and March 20, 1971, the appellant claims to have won in horse race a total amount of ₹ 3,11,831/- on 13 occasions out of which ten winnings were from jackpots and three were from treble events. Similarly in the year 1971-72, the appellant won races on two occasions and both times the winning were from a jackpot. These receipts were tested on the touch stone of human probability and it was found that apparent was not real. That it was contrary to statistic al theory and experience of the frequenci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
