9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered by the Ld. CIT(A). The principles of natural justice demand that the material used against the person must be confronted before taking the decision against the said person. We therefore keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by confronting the relevant material / evidence which were used against the assessee. Appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA NO. 1417/Chd/2019, ITA NO. 1418/Chd/2019 - - - Dated:- 15-10-2020 - Shri. N.K. Saini, VP And Shri, Sanjay Garg, JM For the Assessee : Shri Subhash Aggarwal, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri Arvind Sudarshan, JCIT DR ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These two appeals by the Assessee and the legal heir of another deceased assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 01/06/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana. 2. Since the issues involved are common and the appeals were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Affidavit of the assessee. It was also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was not malafide and it was beyond the control of the assessee, since the delay occurred due to the mistake of the gate keeper to whom the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was delivered, however he could not hand over the same to the assessee timely. He requested to condone the delay. 6. In his rival submissions the Ld. DR although opposed the condonation of delay but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 7. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In our opinion the delay in filing the appeal was not malafide and there was a reasonable cause. We therefore condone the delay and the appeal is admitted. 8. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal. 1. That the order passed by the CIT(A) is without application of mind. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of long term capital gains of ₹ 59,15,108/- by wrongly applying the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act and ignoring the submissions and details filed by the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. The A.O. also asked the information under section 133(6) of the Act from the Purchasers of the shares of M/s Jackson Investments Limited from the assessee, however no reply was received from those Purchasers. The A.O. was of the view that the transactions entered by the assessee involved the series of preconceived steps, the performance of each of which was depending on the others being carried out and that the true nature of such share transactions lacked commercial contents, being artificially structured transactions entered into with the sole intent to evade taxes. He also observed that the assessee purchased and sold the shares of M/s Jackson Investments Limited in a very thoughtful and planned manner and that the assessee avoided revealing any details of how such strategic decisions were made by quoting general friends and business associates, whose whereabouts were not known to the assessee. 9.1 The submissions of the assessee before the A.O. was that he had done this transaction through stock exchanges and banking channels and that he had paid Security Transaction Tax / SEBI Tax / Stamp Duty which was applicable for trading of shares. 9.2 The A.O. however did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond doubt that the assessee has taken accommodation entry to launder its unaccounted money through M/s Jackson Investment Ltd. Therefore the addition under section 68 by the assessing officer has rightly been made. Accordingly, this disallowance is sustained. 11. Now the assessee is in appeal. 12. Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without applying the mind and even the facts discussed in the order passed by her were relating to the another assessee. It was pointed out that the amount of LTCG was also wrongly considered at ₹ 1,62,25,132/- instead of ₹ 59,15,108/-. The reference was made to para 2 to 5 of the impugned order. It was further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the detailed submissions furnished by the assessee and even did not confront the assessee, various case laws which were relied by her while confirming the addition made by the A.O. which tantamount the denying of natural justice particularly when the evidence on which the Ld. CIT(A) placed the reliance were never confronted to the assessee. 13. In his rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the impugned orders passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
