Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2015 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 504 - AT - Income TaxValidity of assessment order - CIT(A) held it as bad in law as so called other order was merely an untenable and concocted story which is non-cognizable and had no legal sanctity - Held that:- if the alleged order bears same DCR No.151/380 on the subsequent demand notice, then it may safely be inferred that allegations made by the ld. AR are correct that the Assessing Officer erred in framing the second order of the same date which was prejudicial to the assessee in comparison to earlier order. We may point out that the conduct of the Assessing Officer was dignified and judicious and the CIT(A) rightly held that second order under appeal is bad in law. The CIT(A) was also quite balanced and justified in drawing attention of CIT, Meerut to this serious issue. We are unable to see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and we uphold the same on this issue. - Decided against revenue Valid service of notice under section 143(2) - Held that:- When the Assessing Officer himself went wrong in holding valid service of notice and did not decide the legal objection of the assessee, the CIT(A) was quite balanced and justified in holding that the valid service of notice within time comes under serious doubt as the Assessing Officer has not brought out any fact on record to support valid service of notice on the assessee. Hence, we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the conclusion of the CIT(A) on this issue and we uphold the same. - Decided against revenue Income earned on sale and purchase transactions of shares - CIT(A) held as capital gain - Held that:- CIT(A) rightly evaluated the conduct of the assessee as well as facts and circumstances of the case in the light of treatment given by the assessee regularly showing investments in shares at purchase value and taking them as investments. Furthermore, the assessee had not claimed the Securities Transaction Tax (SIT) and specially when the assessee could get the benefit of valuation loss or rebate u/s 88E of the Act, the Assessing Officer can not label the assessee as dealer in shares and thus income derived therefrom cannot be treated as business income. The dicta laid down by Hon'ble High Court in the case of Jubilant (2011 (3) TMI 607 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) was followed and the CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee on justified and correct appreciation of fact and we are unable to see any valid reason to interfere with the same. - Decided against revenue
|