Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2018 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1634 - AT - Income TaxLong term capital gains claimed by the assessee as exempt u/s.10(38) - unexplained expenditure being commission paid on the share transactions. - Held that:- Transactions whether real or sham, requires a revisit by the ld. Assessing Officer. Similar directions as given in the cases of Vimalchand Gulabchand, Praveen Chand, Gatraj Jain & Sons (HUF) and Mahendra Kumar Bhandari [2018 (4) TMI 701 - ITAT CHENNAI), read alongwith the directions given in the case of Heerachand Kanunga [2018 (4) TMI 701 - ITAT CHENNAI] are given herealso. Useful reference may be made to the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda [2018 (3) TMI 1610 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], while affirming a judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court [2017 (7) TMI 1164 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], where the importance of providing an opportunity to cross examine the witness has been stressed. Their lordship held that this was an important constituent of natural justice. Only after all the steps required under law is complete, it can be ascertained whether claim of capital gains was bogus or not. The question of payment of any commission on the transactions and whether it was unexplained expenditure will arise only after this determination - set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remit the issue back to the file of the AO for consideration afresh - decided partly in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
|