TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 859X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 148, the ld. Authorised Representative has not pressed this ground of appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed. However, in respect of effective grounds of appeal the ld. Authorised Representative furnished revised ground of appeal which is reproduced as under :- Because the authorities below erred in facts as well as in law in treating receipt ₹ 1,34,240/- against long term capital gain on account of sale of shares as income from other sources. All relevant documents were filed and no irregularity or discrepancy has been observed therein. The Hon ble Court has already accepted such matters. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the Department was in possession of an information that the assessee had taken bogus capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r with the share certificates claimed to have been held in physical manner, even summon under section 131 dated 13.11.2007 issued to the broker remained un-complied with to produce books of account etc. A letter dated 13.11.2007 was also issued by invoking the provisions of section 133(6) of the Act requiring to justify the purchase of shares. The said letter addressed to Kumar Co. received back without service though it was properly addressed and stamped through Speed Post. The A.O. apprised the assessee of the returning of letter from Kumar Co, New Delhi and reply from JRD Stock broker. The assessee was also shown the statement on oath of Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta who has vide his statement on oath dated 23.10.2002 has admitted of provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted for in my books. I do not remember at the moment, because it varies from person to person. The A.O. noticed that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus proving the genuineness of sales of shares through broker. The A.O. made the addition of ₹ 1,32,932/- on the ground that the assessee could not prove the sale of shares and genuineness in respect of money from sale of shares. The A.O. also made addition of ₹ 1,500/- being unexplained expenditure on account of premium money paid to the broker and other persons who extended the sale bill to the assessee. 5. The CIT(A) has confirmed the addition as under :- (Page no.8, para no.6.2) 6.2 On the basis of the report of the AO submitted after making enquiry from Delhi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... okers Pvt. Ltd., the fact that the assessee (appellant) received entry of bogus capital gain from M/s JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. cannot be denied and therefore, I agree with the findings of the AO that the amount of ₹ 1,32,932/- received from M/s JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. showing sale of shares of Kaushambhi Fin Leasing Limited is entry in form of bogus capital gain and liable to be added as undisclosed/unexplained income of the assessee (appellant). The AO is also justified in making addition of ₹ 1,500/- as commission being paid for obtaining the entry of ₹ 1,32,932/- because in the market, such entries are being provided paying certain amount of commission. In view of my above findings, both the additions of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iv) order of ITAT, Agra Bench in ITA No.255/Agra/2004 in the case of Vineet Khera vs. ITO. v) Order of ITAT, Agra Bench in ITA No.129/Agr/2004 in the case of Ashok Kumr Agarwal vs. ACIT. vi) ITO vs. Rajiv Agarwal, 139 Taxman 170 (ITAT) vii) Kishin Chand Chella Ram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) viii) Tulse Dass Babulal vs. CST (1999) UPTC 1273 (All.) ix) Prakash Chand Mehta vs. CIT, 301 ITR 134 (MP) x) CST vs. Moti Oil Mills (1980) UPTC 557 (All) xi) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349 (SC) 7. Ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied upon the order of CIT(A) and submitted that the Delhi Stock Exchange Limited vide letter dated 28.02.2011 furnished information called by the A.O. under section 133(6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specific request made by the assessee vide his letter dated 30th November 2007. Non-providing opportunity of cross examination amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. In the light of the fact, I set aside the order of CIT(A) and think it proper to send back this matter to the file of CIT(A) with the direction to provide opportunity to the assessee to cross examination of M/s. JRD Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, considering the various decisions cited by the Ld. Authorised Representative. The CIT(A) will decide the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The assessee is at liberty to file necessary evidence in support of it s claim and the same shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
