9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in spite of the repeated opportunities given to the assessee. - Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 1979/DEL/2015 - - - Dated:- 17-1-2020 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. A.K. Batra, CA For the Revenue : Sh. Sanjog Kapoor, Sr. DR. ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-4, New Delhi dated 30.01.2015 pertaining to assessment year 2004-05 on the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is wrong in confirming the addition of ₹ 963,950/- mae by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act. 2. That on the facts of the case section 68 are not applicable in the case of the assessee as the appellant does not maintain any books of accounts an therefore, the provisions of section 68 are not applicable. 3. That without prejudice to the above the CIT(A) is wrong in confirming the addition of ₹ 9,63,950/- made by the AO on account of sale of shares. 4. That the CITA(A) has confirmed the addition of ₹ 9,63,95 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n which Stock Exchange, he traded this transaction. As regards to the rate on which shares were sold, assessee has submitted copy of newspaper cutting from HT business Patna. After hearing the assessee and perusing the documentary evidences filed by the assessee, the AO is not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee and finally the AO added ₹ 9,63,950/- as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 04.09.2009 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and against the impugned order dated 4.9.2009, assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal and Tribunal vide its order dated 6.12.2010 remitted the issue to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. In compliance of the Tribunal s order dated 6.12.2010, the AO completed the assessment on 23.12.2011 u/s. 143(3)/254 of the Act and again added ₹ 9,63,950/- to the income of the assessee being undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 23.12.2011 assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the orders of the revenue authorities alongwith the written submissions filed by the assessee and the documentary evidences filed by the assessee in the shape of paper book in which the assessee has attached various documentary evidences for substantiating his claim before the AO. 5.1 After going through the impugned order dated 30.1.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), I am of the view that no doubt that the AO while passing the original assessment order as well as present assessment order in compliance of the ITAT order has conducted the enquiry by issuing various notices u/s. 131 of the Act and u/s. 133(6) of the Act for proving the genuineness of the transaction. But before the Ld. First Appellate Authority the main plea of the assessee was that the AO has not carried out any enquiry in compliance with the directions of the ITAT, Delhi issued vide order dated 6.12.2010 to clear the doubt and to follow the prescribed procedure under the law and in the interest of justice, Ld. CIT(A) himself utilised the statutory powers vested with him which are co-terminus with that of the AO and carried out enquiries to give effect to the directions of the ITAT, Delhi in their or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ld. CIT(A) has also asked M/s Supreme Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. to furnish the prevailing market value of shares in the month of May, 2003, which too was not furnished by this company to the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has also issued various notices to passing the same to the company as well as to its Directors Mr. Pawan Kumar, Arvind Kumar while issuing the notice u/s. 131 of the I.T. Act on 17.2.2014. But no response was given by them. But on 22.4.2014 they informed that there is no procedure to maintain the market value of shares and whether any share were actually allotted or not. The Ld. CIT(A) has also issued various notices to the company and its Director, but they did not respond to the same and in the absence of any reply, penalty u/s. 272(2)(A) of an amount of ₹ 10,000/- was also levied on Mr. Praveen Kumar, Director of M/s Supreme Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. vide order dated 16.9.2014. 5.4 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances as explained above, I am of the view that assessee did not substantiate his claim as required under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the amount of ₹ 9,63,950/- by way of filing the valid documentary evidences as re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve filed any satisfactory documentary evidences for substantiating the claim before the revenue authorities especially before the Ld. CIT(A) and after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the transactions in dispute is under doubt. Since the actual sale price of the shares of M/s Supreme Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. claimed to be sold by the assessee at a face value of ₹ 96.50 per share in May, 2003 was itself doubtful as the payment for sale consideration from M/s DN Kansal Securities Pvt. Ltd., an unrelated party, was received after 10 months by the assessee in March, 2010 and it was not clear as to whom these shares were eventually sold by the broker and what was the basis for taking sale price at ₹ 96.50 per share when the company was running in losses. As per the documentary evidences filed by the assessee and the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that M/s Supreme Agro Products Pvt. Ltd. was carrying on huge losses in the AY 2004-05 and had not declared any dividend to its share holders, further adds to the suspicion for trading of its shares 9.6 times its face value as claimed by the assessee. 5.4 Keepi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
