Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 43 - AT - Income TaxAddition made by treating LTCG as Income from other sources Sale of shares Factual evidences and submissions not considered Held that:- CIT(A) was of the view that the profits can be only STCG as there is no authentic proof of holding those shares before the date of Demat and accordingly taxable @ 30% instead of 10% - assessee had not shown any income from sale of shares before or after AY 05-06 and he has traded mainly in these two shares only assessee during search could not give satisfactory explanation to various questions posed to him such as why he preferred to do transaction in these shares only when he had never done any transaction in shares before - the assessee declared long term capital gain on account of sale of shares of M/s. Tanu Health Care Ltd. and Comfort Intech Ltd. - The cost of purchase of shares of M/s. Tanu Health Care Ltd. were made after a lapse of more than one year from the date on which shares were purchased by the broker - The assessee was not known to the broker - During the course of search the statement of the assessee was recorded wherein he has stated that the sale transactions were done as per advice of his friend Shri Anand Jaju, Pune who has expertise in share market. Relying upon Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT [1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME Court] - the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings has surrendered the income after the modus operandi as discussed by the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order was confronted - It is a fact that the assessee never appeared before the Assessing Officer and was always represented by his Advocate - the contention of the assessee has surrendered the income due to coercion cannot be substantiated The assessee has surrendered the income before the AO for which the Assessing Officer did not proceed for any further enquiry and completed the assessment by treating the long term capital gain as income from other sources and since the surrounding circumstances of the case also prove that the transactions in purchase and sale of shares is just a colourable device especially when the assessee had not done any such transaction in the preceding or subsequent year and the assessee even does not know the broker personally thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) Decided against Assessee.
|