9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find ourselves to be in agreement with the view arrived at by the lower authorities. We thus set aside the order of the CIT(A), and delete both of the addition made u/s.68 and u/s. 69 - Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5793/Mum/2019 dated 20.04.2020 who is the cousin of the assessee. In the case of Shri Amit Mafatlal Shah the ITAT has passed favorable order and Ld. AR filed the copy of the order and also he filed a comparative chart on facts of the both cases and filed the list of case laws in support of the assessee's case which is reproduced below for the sake of clarity: - Sr.No AMIT MAFATLAL SHAH MUKESH BHOORMAL JAIN 1. Name of Share: Premier Capital Services Ltd Name of Share: Premier Capital Services Ltd 2. Preferential allotment on 04/09/2012 Preferential allotment on 04/09/2012 3. Payment was made through account payee cheque (HDFC Bank) Payment was made through account payee cheque (Bank of Maharashtra) 4. 20,000 Shares allotted 20,000 Shares allotted 5. Demat A/c : Standard Chartered Demat A/c : Unique Stock Bro Pvt Ltd 6. 2,00,000 Shares on Split 2,00,000 Shares on Split 7. Sold 1,24,050 Shares after holding more than 12 months Sold 2,00,000 Shares after holding more than 12 months 8 Selling Price per share ₹ 277 /- Selling Price per share ₹ 275 /- 9. Broker Company: PPJ Shroff Securities Pvt Ltd Broker Company: F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s merely relied on the investigation report and did not try to collect further evidences by conducting further investigation to prove that the assessee own funds have changed hands. Under these circumstances, we are not in a position to subscribe to the conclusion by the authorities below. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by a series of decisions referred and relied by the Ld. A.R. during the course of hearing as reproduced hereinabove a few of which are discussed below:- In the case of CIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (supra). In this case, the issue is whether the amount received by the assessee on sale of shares can be treated as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. The Tribunal deleted the addition by allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that the purchase of shares were duly recorded in the books of accounts and the source of funds is also explained and the shares were in fact transferred in the name of the assessee and thus the purchases of the assessee can not be fault with. Similarly, the sale of shares was effected can not be disputed because the amount received by the assessee is not in dispute and it is not the case of the Revenue that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition.The tribunal followed the decision of coordinate bench in the case of Meghraj Singh Shekhawat Vs DCIT ITA No. 444/JP/2017 AY 2013-14 and 2014- 15 which in turn has followed apex court decision in the case of M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006. In the case of Fara Marker vs. ITO (supra) the similar issue has been decided under the similar set of facts by holding that the long term capital gain is genuine as the assessee has fully discharged its onus and AO has not done any further verification. In the case of Kamaladevi vs. Doshi vs. ITO the similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee by observing and holding as under: "14. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case and are of the considered view that the assessee had placed on record substantial documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness and veracity of the purchase and sale of 10,200 shares of M/s Talent Infoways Ltd., viz. copy of the Contract note, dated. 15.04.2004 evidencing the purchase of shares; Copy of the contract note, dated. 06.04.2004 as regards the speculation income, and the copy of the cash receipt for ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of: CIT-13 Vs. M/s Ashish International (ITA No 4299 P a g e | 26 of 2009; dated. 22.02.2011), wherein the order of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. We thus in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, are neither able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the adverse inferences drawn by the lower authorities in respect of the share transactions of the assessee by referring to the stand alone statement of Sh. Mukesh Choksi, as the same as observed by us hereinabove, suffer from serious infirmities, and as such cannot be summarily accepted, nor are able to dislodge the genuineness of the purchase and sale of shares of the aforesaid 10,200 shares of M/s Talent Infoways Ltd., which we find had been duly substantiated by the assessee on the basis of material made available on record, which we find had not been dislodged by the lower authorities. We thus in the backdrop of the totality of the facts of the case are unable to find ourselves to be in agreement with the view arrived at by the lower authorities. We thus set aside the order of the CIT(A), and delete both of the additions of ₹ 9,36,164/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
