Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2011 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (4) TMI 1331 - AT - Income TaxBogus LTCG - unexplained credit u/s 068 - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the CIT(A). In present case, AO questioned the veracity of the fact brought in the affidavit of Mr. Mekesh Chokshi. The AO has doubted the genuineness of the very transactions entered by the appellant and were sold by the appellant at R.79 to 95 per share where in the rate quoted in the Ahmedabad Stock Exchange (ASSESSEE) was only ₹ 49/- per share on the last trading. The AO was of the view that selling of the shares of Talent Infoway Ltd. at ₹ 79 to ₹ 95 per share as against ₹ 49/- per share quoted in the ASSESSEE on the last trading of share itself give a vital view of the fabricated transaction. The AO also expressed his apprehensions for the genuineness of the real buyers of the shares from M/s Mahasagar securities Pvt. Ltd. The AO also gave a finding that appellant failed to establish any real buyer has purchased the shares and no detail was given by M/s Mahasagar securities Pvt. Ltd. regarding the buyers of the shares. HELD THAT:- Considering all the facts and the fact that the similar addition on similar grounds was deleted by the CIT(A), the deletion was confirmed by the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT with the following remarks “We first take up the revenue of the as the both the parties have agreed that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by the decision of this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Mukesh R. Morolia [2005 (12) TMI 457 - ITAT MUMBAI] and a decision in the case of Mrs. Rajnidevi K. Chaudhary[2009 (4) TMI 936 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] as confirmed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we uphold the order of the CIT(A). Respectfully following this decision of the Hon’ble ITAT on similar facts in the case of the appellant’s brother and taking into consideration all the reasons discussed, the addition made by the AO treating LTCG as unexplained credits u/s 068 of the Act is deleted and AO is directed to assess the same as LTCG as shown by the appellant.
|