Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2021 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 270 - HC - Income TaxBogus LTCG - Penny stock purchases - Claim made u/s 10(38) denied - ITAT remanded the matter back by setting aside the additions - HELD THAT:- As decided in MRS. MANISH D. JAIN (HUF) [2020 (12) TMI 740 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] not only the AO but also the CIT(A) examined the modus operandi of the assessee and held that the shares were purchased through off market and not through Stock Exchange and that the selling rates were artificially hiked later on. The above findings have not been set aside by the Tribunal and there is no reason for the Tribunal to remand the matter to the AO for a fresh consideration. As pointed out in the decision of this Court in the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. [2013 (7) TMI 90 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] we find in the instant case that there was no material, which necessitated the remand of the case to the Assessing Officer and it is a clear case where the Tribunal had failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the manner known to law.Tribunal, being a last fact finding Authority, is under the legal obligation to record a correct finding of fact. Where all the evidence had been produced and the CIT(A), after full investigation of the evidence and examination of the accounts, had given a definite finding on the question in issue, the Tribunal's order of remand was held to be invalid. In the recent decision in the case of Tharakumari Vs. ITO [2019 (3) TMI 647 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the appeal filed by the assessee in a case relating to penny stock was dismissed after noting the factual findings rendered by the AO, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Thus, for all the above reasons, we hold that the order passed by the Tribunal calls for interference. - Substantial questions of law framed are answered in favour of the Revenue
|