Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2008 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (4) TMI 753 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - sale procced of share treated as income from other sources - Long term capital gain - Purchase and Sale of Shares - genuineness of the transaction - HELD THAT:- The transaction entered into by the assessee is duly supported by purchase bill, contract note, delivery and transaction of share in her name which are also reflected in the balance sheet as on 31-3-2001 and on 31-3-2001. The sale bill with delivery contract note for sale of receipt of payment through account payee bank draft in bank account are also proved from the payment and is enclosed in the Paper Book of the assessee. On the other hand, to controvert the claim of the assessee there is no evidence in the possession of the department but the doubt has been created because the assessee could not produce that much evidence as was required by the learned Assessing Officer. There is no even a single evidence to show that these transactions were not genuine and the assessee had income from any other source(s) which might have been introduced by her in her books in the guise of long term capital gain to avoid payment of tax. There is no evidence on record which can prove the sale consideration of shares which was duly supported by bills issued by broker and there is no evidence to prove that this amount represented unaccounted money of the assessee received in the guise of sale proceeds of shares. The learned Assessing Officer has not even invoked the provisions of section 68 and the fact remains that the assessee disclosed the sale of shares and receipt thereof in her return of income and has claimed exemption under section 54EC. So there is no case of treating these sales proceeds as income from other sources. Following the case of ITO v. Smt. Kusumlata [2006 (8) TMI 266 - ITAT JODHPUR], We decide the issue in favour of the assessee and the factual matrix supplement the version of the assessee and there being no evidence on record to supplant the contention of the assessee, there is no question of making addition on the amount under the provisions of section 68 of the Act. To further strengthen my above finding, reference may be made to the decision which was recently delivered in the case of CIT v. Anupam Kapoor [2007 (2) TMI 159 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]. Hence, the addition in question cannot be made in the hands of the assessee u/s 68 and this amount is to be deleted from her hand. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
|