Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2016 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 766 - HC - Income TaxLong Term Capital Gain - what is the cost of acquisition of 1665 shares in Yashomal Leasing and Finance (P) Ltd. (now merged in Lavasa Corporation Ltd.) which have been admittedly sold by the respondent – assessee along with other preference shares during the subject assessment year for the purpose of computing the capital gains - Held that:- The fact that Mr. and Mrs.Bhale, the vendors of 1665 shares to the respondent – assessee had not disclosed the receipt of consideration of sale in their returns of income and had not offered the same for tax cannot lead to the conclusion that no consideration was received by them. This is an issue which the Revenue is to take up with Mr. and Mrs.Bhale. The purchasers of shares cannot be held responsible for default made by the vendors of shares in filing their return of income and not disclosing consideration received by them for sale of their shares. It is also to be borne in mind that the Assessing Officer completely ignored the confirmation letter given by vendors of 1665 shares. Further fact that the respondent – assessee had paid the consideration for the sale of 1665 shares by account payee cheques is also significant. It is also pertinent to note that before the Tribunal the grievance of the revenue is that the CIT (A) has accepted explanation of the respondent – assessee. It has been correctly observed by the Tribunal that the explanation given by any party has to be taken into consideration and if the same is found to be acceptable and correct, the authority has to accept the same. The consequences would follow. In view of the fact that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal accepting the purchase of 1665 shares of Lavassa Corporation Ltd. in the assessment year 2002-03 for a consideration of ₹ 41.25 lakhs as claimed by the respondent – assessee. Nothing has been shown to us which would lead us to a conclusion that the finding of fact arrived at by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal are perverse. The view taken by both authorities on the basis of evidence and explanation made available before them was a possible and reasonable view. In the above view the question as posed for our consideration does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
|