|
Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 175842 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 1829
Condonation of delay - delay of 134 days - disallowance u/s.43B - HELD THAT:- There is a delay of 134 days in the present appeal, for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay.
DR opposed the application filed by the assessee for condonation of delay. We have seen the application for the condonation of delay duly supported by a sworn affidavit of the Director of the assessee-company. For the reasons mentioned in the condonation application, we hereby condone the delay of 134 days and proceed to decide the appeal on the merits.
Today, when the matter was called up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite proper service of notice. However, this being an old appeal, we dispose of this appeal on merits.
CIT (A) has not at all adjudicated the disallowance u/s.43B in a judicious manner. Therefore, we restore this matter to the file of the jurisdictional AO to decide the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say, the AO shall afford meaningful opportunity of being heard to the assessee before passing any order. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1828
Addition u/s 68 on account of current liabilities - CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s contention that the said liabilities represent bona fide deposits and interest accrued payable to members and form part of the regular credit operations of the cooperative society - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee is engaged in the business of mobilizing deposits and granting loans to its members, the existence of liabilities in this form is inherent to its functioning. The details were part of the audited financials and there is no material brought by the AO to suggest that these amounts are unexplained credits. Therefore, the CIT(A) rightly treated them as genuine liabilities, not falling within the purview of section 68. Revenue Ground dismissed.
Disallowance on account of personal expenditure - AO noted that the tax audit report referred to personal expenditure of Rs. 40,00,000/-, while the return disclosed ‘NIL’ - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) verified from the computation of income that the above amount had been disallowed under item 23 of Part A–P&L in the return of income. The AO’s addition amounted to duplication, and the CIT(A) rightly deleted the same. No infirmity is found in the CIT(A)’s reasoning. Ground (b) is dismissed.
Addition u/s 68 - increase in loans and advances - CIT(A) deleted addition as accepted that these advances were part of the core activity of the co-operative society, and the increase was normal and verifiable from the balance sheet - HELD THAT:- Importantly, in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018–19, the Coordinate Bench dismissed Revenue’s appeal on a similar addition made u/s 68, holding that such balances in the balance sheet arising from regular credit operations do not attract section 68. Respectfully following the said decision and in the absence of any fresh evidence brought by the Revenue, we uphold the CIT(A)’s deletion. Ground (c) is dismissed.
Disallowance u/s 40A(7) - AO disallowed amount on the ground that it was not reported in the return, although it was mentioned in the tax audit report - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has verified that the assessee had already disallowed this provision in its computation under Part A–P&L, item 23. Since the amount stood already disallowed, there was no cause for a further addition. The AO’s action clearly results in duplication. Ground (d) is dismissed.
Disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) - AO denied the claim for want of evidence - CIT(A) evaluated the components of income and held that the interest incomes were derived from members and hence eligible - HELD THAT:- Out of Rs. 43,13,281/- of total bank interest income Rs. 41,40,282/- earned from investments with co-operative banks was held allowable u/s 80P(2)(d), as supported by the decision of Coordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2018-19 [2023 (12) TMI 1418 - ITAT SURAT] and Ashwinkumar Arban Co-op. Society Ltd. [2024 (11) TMI 971 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. In absence of any contrary material, we find no merit in the Revenue’s challenge. Ground (e) is dismissed.
Admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A - CIT(A) adjudicated the appeal on the basis of explanations and reconciliations derived from the return and its annexures which were available to the Assessing Officer but were not examined by him due to lack of response from the assessee and the consequent best judgment nature of the assessment. It is also well settled that the first appellate authority is empowered under section 250(4) of the Act to make further inquiries or call for additional information as deemed necessary and is not constrained by the provisions of Rule 46A where the factual basis of adjudication is already present in the record and no new documentary evidence is relied upon. In these circumstances, the action of the CIT(A) cannot be held to be in violation of Rule 46A, as the explanations considered were contextual clarifications supported by existing financials, and no factual prejudice has been demonstrated to have been caused to the Revenue - Ground (f) is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1799
Revision u/s 263 - limitation period in suo motu revision - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the respondents can re-open the assessment order within a period of two years from the end of the relevant financial year. In the present case, the assessment order was passed on 20.06.2017 and the said two year period came to an end on 31.03.2020. Therefore, on or before 31.03.2020, the second respondent should have passed the suo motu revision order.
But in the present case admittedly, the suo motu order was passed by invoking section 263 on 22.03.2021, clearly after the expiry of limitation of two years. Thereafter, another assessment order was passed on 30.03.2022 by the third respondent. Therefore, it is a clear case that the entire proceeding is a violation of Section 263(2). Hence, the assessment orders passed by the respondents 2 & 3 stands quashed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1798
Assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C - allegation of suppression of income - incriminating material - Satisfaction note recorded or not? - whether seized documents is related to the assessee and what is the incriminating effect? - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) certainly, apart from mentioning that the seized documents related to the assessee, there is not a word as to how and what material content related to the assessee so as to allege that there was suppression of income.
The satisfaction note is certainly not worded in accordance with the law requiring the AO assuming jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act to show that the seized document pertained to the assessee and it should be further reflected as to how the income was not disclosed.
The fact that in the reasons the AO mentions that the cases of group are interconnected and required deep investigation to arrive at a logical conclusion, certainly establishes non-application of mind and not having sufficient material to have recourse to section 153C of the Act. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1797
Addition u/s 69A - cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee and further there were credit entries as unexplained - Assessee has died - legal heirs of the deceased seeked placing additional evidences - AO observed that despite issuance of several notices of hearing, the assessee did not comply and accordingly, he made addition - HELD THAT:- Assessee/legal heirs of the deceased filed paper book stating that the assessee had not been keeping well for a long time and had ultimately expired on 24th December, 2024.
Assessee also filed revised Form 36, bringing the legal heirs of the assessee on record. The Counsel for the assessee also furnished medical and payment receipts to demonstrate that the assessee had been unwell for a long time and was undergoing treatment. The assessee also filed sale bills towards sale of rice (agricultural produce) to demonstrate that the assessee was earning agricultural income, which were duly disclosed by the assessee in its return of income, for the impugned year under consideration.
On going through the facts of the assessee’s case and the details filed by the assessee before us, in the interest of justice, the matter is hereby restored to the file of the assessing officer for de novo consideration. The legal heirs of the assessee would be at liberty to furnish any evidence, in support of its case - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1796
Levy of late fee u/s. 234E - furnishing of TDS quarterly statements belatedly - returns processed u/s. 200A of the Act prior to 01/06/2015 - HELD THAT:- As relying on Pancharatna Buildcon Pvt. Ltd [2024 (12) TMI 460 - ITAT PUNE] no late fee u/sec. 234E can be imposed for the periods prior to 01.06.2015. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1795
Addition u/s 68 - unsecured loan receipts - onus to prove - documents which are claimed to be incomplete as per the Department - AO opined that the assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness of the unsecured loan - HELD THAT:- It is a case of the assessee that the lower authorities have ignored the vital fact that the said loans were taken during the relevant previous year through banking channel, and for the purpose of applying section 68 source of the source need not be proved for the year under consideration.
It is not the case of the Department that the Assessee has not at all produced any document, however, it is a case of Department is that the assessee has provided incomplete documents and not produced the director of the lender company.
Considering the fact that the assessee has indeed produced certain documents which are claimed to be incomplete as per the Department in the absence of any material available on record to examine the factual dispute, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating issue afresh. The assessee is hereby directed to produce the ‘complete’ documents to the satisfaction of the Ld. CIT(A) - Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1794
Depreciation on factory assets leased out - real owner of assets - finance lease v/s operating lease - assessee cooperative society has leased out its factory to other party and the assets on which depreciation has been claimed were not used by the assessee himself.
HELD THAT:- As earlier the assessee itself was running the sugar factory but due to financial crisis the factory with all assets was handed over to other party for running the business. We also find from the details that the income by leasing out the factory was shown as business income by the assessee cooperative society and in earlier years such depreciation was also allowed to the assessee cooperative society under similar facts and circumstances of the case.
Copy of assessment order for assessment year 2017-18 and copy of first appeal order for assessment year 2016-17 were produced before us wherein depreciation was allowed to the assessee cooperative society.
The Revenue is not in appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) allowing depreciation on such leased assets. Thus, we find force in the arguments of assessee that the AO as well as CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not allowing the depreciation claimed by the assessee since the same was already allowed in earlier years and therefore there is no reason to disallow the same in subsequent years. Appeal of assessee allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1793
Addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE - unexplained cash credit in bank accounts - CIT(A) deleted addition - Assessee contended that bank accounts in which the amounts in cash was deposited are pertaining to M/s Sahara India and not of the Assessee
HELD THAT:- CIT(A) found that none of the bank accounts are belongs to the Assessee and all the bank accounts are belong to M/s Sahara India, wherein, the Assessee is only an authorized signatory and her PAN was wrongly linked to the said bank accounts by the bank.
CIT(A) has found that PAN number of the Assessee was erroneously uploaded by the bank officials to those bank accounts instead of uploading the PAN number of the firm i.e. M/s Sahara India. AO has not established in any manner whatsoever that the Assessee was the beneficiary of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of M/s Sahara India firm. Also not the case of the AO that the cash so deposited in the firm has been subsequently transferred to the account of the Assessee and the AO has not given a single instance of any money having been transferred from the account of M/s Sahara India firm to the Assessee’s account.
CIT(A) has deleted the addition based on the Certificates given by the Bank that the bank accounts are not belongs to the Assessee and the same are belongs to M/s Sahara India. As Department of Revenue has not brought any contrary evidence on record against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1776
Writ of Mandamus or writ directing the respondent to release the assets seized during the course of search, i.e., jewellery and bullion - As decided by HC [2024 (8) TMI 1578 - DELHI HIGH COURT] preliminary objection was raised by the respondents with respect to the maintainability of the writ petition before this Court bearing in mind the undisputed fact that the search was undertaken by the Income Tax authorities situate in the State of Haryana and the seizure of material also having been effected by them. Bearing in mind the aforesaid facts, we find no justification to either entertain or continue this writ petition on our board.
HELD THAT:- It has come on record that after filing of the petition, the case of the petitioners has been centralized and transferred from Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1), Delhi to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Faridabad (Haryana).
Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this special leave petition. Petitioners may seek their remedy before the High Court having jurisdiction.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1775
Delay as beyond the condonnable period - ex parte order - delay of 6 months in filing the appeal against the assessment order - as submitted assessment order was issued to an outdated e-mail ID of his former auditor - HELD THAT:- No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.
This Court is inclined to set aside the rejection order by condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, since the reason assigned by the petitioner appears to be genuine.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1774
Taxability of capital gains in the assessment year 2007-08 - transfer of property u/s 2(47) - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, AO having accepted the transfer in the assessment year 2004-05 and levied tax thereon, cannot sing a different tune in the assessment year 2007-08. In the assessment year 2004-05, the property in question was treated as transfer as per the definition of Section 2(47)(v) in the hands of the Assessee and consequently, capital gains was also assessed in that assessment year. After treating all transfer of the property in the hands of the Assessee as transfer in the assessment year 2004-05, it is not open to the Revenue to again treat the same property as transfer by the same Assessee in the assessment year 2007-08 also.
As submitted that under Section 50C of the Act, if the consideration received is less than the value adopted by the same valuation authority for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value adopted shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration received as a result of such transfer and stamp duty payable. The Section says “all such transfer”.
Transfer admittedly happened in the assessment year 2004-05 and the Assessing Officer has accepted the value in the assessment year 2004-05 and has also levied capital gains tax. Therefore, we would agree with the Tribunal that there is no merit in the stand taken by the AO and capital gains cannot be assessed in the assessment year 2007-08.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1773
Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non-filing of ITR within the prescribed period - concealment of income or not? - Whether bonafide mistake which took place due to inadvertence and human error in not uploading its ITR ? - assessee had failed to file return of income u/s 139 (1) and then filing the same only in response to notice u/s 148
HELD THAT:- In this case, there is no ‘evasion’ of tax. It is crystal clear that even the respondents have in so many words admitted that since there were no tax payable after giving the credit of TDS, there was no concealment of income made by the assessee in terms of the provision laid down in clause (c) of the Explanation ‘4’ of Section 271 of the Act.
The present case is standing on a completely different footing and the judicial pronouncements placed before this Court on behalf of the Department would not help it. The bonafide and inadvertent human error is apparent on the face of it in as much as financial statements and tax audit report were duly filed and all taxes stood paid within the presented period but the ‘ITR’ could not be filed/uploaded. Explanation ‘3’ does not envisage this situation.
Keeping in view clause (c) of Explanation ‘4’ of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, this Court finds that the statements made by the petitioner in paragraph ‘16(iii)’ of the writ petition wherein calculations have been shown have not been denied and that would be important to take a view that the Assessing Officer has not applied his judicious mind even while calculating the penalty amount.
This Court finds on appreciation of the scheme of Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation ‘3’ that it essentially covers a case where there is a concealment of the particulars of income or where the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of his income.
This Court has no difficulty in recording that it is not a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Even the respondents have admitted it in paragraph ‘9’ of their counter affidavit which this Court has already quoted hereinabove. Explanation ‘3’ clearly talks of a satisfaction to be reached by the Assessing Officer or the Joint Commission (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) that in respect of such assessment year, such person has taxable income and if he has not filed his return, then he will be deemed to have concealed his particulars of income in respect of such assessment year.
In the present case, no such satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the peculiar facts of this case where admittedly, the petitioner had uploaded the financial statements and the tax audit report and had paid all the taxes.
According to this Court, the provisions of law as discussed above have been incorporated in the statute book to catch hold of a dishonest person who fails to file his return and conceals his particulars of income in order to evade taxes. In the present case, the facts are glaring and showing on the face of it with an admission on the part of the respondents that it was not a case of concealment of income by the assessee. In fact, the petitioner has been found entitled to refund.
AO as well as the Revisional Authority both have failed to take a correct view in the facts and circumstances of this case. AO has not only committed error in applying clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 271 read with Explanation ‘3’ of the Act but has also failed to calculate the penalty amount by duly appreciating clause (c) attached to Explanation ‘4’. Thus, on both counts, he has committed wrong. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1772
Non quoting of Document Identification Numbers (DIN) in notices, orders, and directions issued - DIN was not generated electronically for DRP proceedings
HELD THAT:- Even a satisfaction note according to the Division Bench would fall within the scope of paragraph No.2 of the circular and therefore, in our view, there cannot be any doubt that the directions of the DRP which consists of a collegium of three Income Tax Commissioners also would fall within the scope of paragraph No.2 of the circular.
1Apart from the fact that DRP proceedings did not contain a valid DIN and is invalid for the reasons stated above, we find that the assessment order also in this case does not contain a DIN. There is no explanation offered by appellant for not generating the DIN in the assessment order. Therefore, the assessment order is invalid for both the reasons and we find no merit in the above appeal. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1771
Reopening of assessment - LTCG - nature of land sold - difference between the purchase price and the stamp duty value - determining the question of ‘capital asset’ - scope of documentary evidence that the property in question could not be termed a ‘capital asset’ - According to the petitioner, the agricultural land was located beyond 8 km. aerial distance from nearest municipality and the population of the village Khumari was below 10000 and, therefore, the land in question cannot be termed as the ‘capital asset'
HELD THAT:- It does not appear that the AO independently obtained the material and formed his opinion based on said material that there was escapement of the income. While drawing only inference, he has to know the connotation of ‘capital asset’ as per Section 2(14) of which clause (iii) excludes the ‘agricultural land’ which is located beyond 8 km in aerial distance from the municipality and the population of the village is less than ten thousand does not fall within the purview of capital asset.
Thus it is apparent that the AO without applying his mind to the information that was available at the insight portal or recording his satisfaction to be recorded issued the impugned notice u/s 148A of the Act and thereby reopened the assessment. Therefore, in our view, the mandate in Gandhibag Sahakari Bank Ltd. [2023 (9) TMI 1344 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and Arvind Sahdeo Gupta [2023 (8) TMI 522 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] is applicable in the case at hand, rather the decisions in the Anshul Jain [2022 (6) TMI 1310 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. [1997 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT] as the facts in the said judgments are distinct than the case at hand. So, the mandate in the said judgments is not applicable.
Thus, we find that the AO in absence of verification of the information available on the insight portal has proceeded to reopen the completed assessment without indicating the basis for having a reason to believe that the difference between the purchase price and the stamp duty value is chargeable to tax under the provisions of the IT Act and the tax paid by the petitioner had escaped assessment.
Further reopening is based on grossly incorrect facts that the assessment had been completed u/s 143(1) and was hence no assessment u/s 2(40) of the IT Act of 1961, when in fact the assessment had been completed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act. The reopening was thus merely an outcome of a change of opinion of the AO.
Thus, the notice issued u/s 148A(b) and consequential order would not survive and are liable to be quashed and set aside. They are accordingly quashed and set aside, having been issued in the absence of statutory jurisdiction in that regard. Consequently, steps taken in pursuance of the said notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act would not survive. As a result, the writ petition is allowed of assessee.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1770
Validity of reopening of assessment - Time limit for notice u/s 149 - notice issued beyond the period of six years from the end of the assessment year - HELD THAT:- The screen shot as provided by the respondents to the petitioner to contend that the notice dated 31.3.2021 under Section 148 of the Act had been issued on 31.3.2021 itself, has to be considered. Considering the language of Section 13(1) of the IT Act, it would be apparent, that the sent time stamp occurring on this document is dated 01.04.2021, 03:58:33 AM and the delivered time stamp reads 01.04.2021, 03:58:36 AM. This would indicates, that within 3 micro seconds of the notice which was sent by email, being put in the system, it was delivered to the petitioner. However, the date of putting it into the system is material. The document at page 140 is the only document according to both the counsels which can demonstrate this position.
Though it is contended by respondents that the time the assessing officer signs it which according to him it was done on 31.3.2021, at 18:36 PM would be the time it was put in the system for delivery and therefore was beyond the control of the Assessing Officer, however, the notice dated 31.03.2021 does not indicate, that it was put in the system at the time when it was signed. All that it indicates is that it was signed by the Officer on 31.3.2021 at 18:36 PM. We would, therefore, have to fall back on the screen shot of the department as indicated at page 140, which would point out to us that the ‘sent time’ will have to be taken to be the time at which it was put in the system, considering that it took only 3 micro seconds to delivery, which would be on 01.04.2021.
Though a plea is being raised, that this was on account of traffic congestion in the system we are unable to accept this for the reason that it was open for the respondents to place on record, material to that effect, indicating that the assessing officer, apart from signing the notice on 31.3.2021 at 18:36 PM had actually put it in the system. There is nothing on record to indicate that this is the position. Though Mr. Mohata, learned counsel for the respondent places reliance upon the manual prepared by the department in this regard, however, that is merely a set of instructions, to be followed by the department, which does not indicate, that it would have actually been followed.
We are, therefore, unable to agree respondents that the notice dated 31.3.2021, was sent on the same date, which is in the teeth of the screen shot provided by the department which states that the sent time stamp is dated 01.04.2021 at 3:58:33 AM. It is also necessary to note, that it is not the case of the respondents that the same was due to traffic congestion and had it been a case, nothing prevented it from placing on record the exact time at which the concerned officer had put the email in the system so that the presumption under Section 13(1) of the Act could have been attracted.
The result of the aforesaid discussion is, that the petition will have to be allowed by quashing the notice under Section 148. Assessee appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1769
Addition u/s 69 - Unexplained investment - CIT(A) determining the income of Gross Profit at the rate of 6% - assessee had himself admitted the net profit to be ₹70 lacs in his statement but did not offer the said unaccounted income for the relevant assessment year for tax - HELD THAT:- AO has held that Dipak Shah being the partner of the firm has in his statement has accepted that ₹69,10,285/- was unaccounted sale for the relevant assessment year but from the return filed by the assessee it cannot be verified whether the assessee has offered the amount of ₹69,10,285/- to tax or not.
The assessee in this regard is silent hence, the ld. AO treated the same amount as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.
Statement of shri Dipak Shah recorded u/s 133A of the Act reveals thus “it is unaccounted sale and does not enter in the books of account as on date.” It is further pertinent to mention here that there is no excess stock and all the stock found at the time of survey was related to the books of accounts. The assessee has clearly stated that the sale has been duly recorded in the audited books of accounts and same is included in the total turnover and duly offered for taxation in the return of income. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1768
Disallowance on account of bogus penny stock - AO received information from DDIT (Investigation), Calcutta that M/s. Jai Maa Kali Enterprise (Proprietor Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta) later transferred to Mr. Ashok Kumar Kayan, a share broker and accommodation entry provider, indulged in suspicious transactions relating to cash deposits and assessee was one of the beneficiaries who had taken accommodation entries - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that in each and every case, it is not possible / viable to give opportunity of cross-examination. In the instant case, the additions have not been made solely on the basis of statement of Mr. Ashok Kumar Kayan, but also on account of various discrepancies noted by the Assessing Officer in the assessee’s set of facts.
Assessee was not a regular investor in shares, the company whose shares the assessee sold i.e. M/s. Vindus Holding Ltd. did not have any sound financials so as to justify making investment in the shares of such company, there is no justifiable reason as to why such a company with weak financials could make such astronomical gains and that too within a short duration of time, AO also noted that the other family members of the assessee’s family has also engaged in obtaining similar bogus LTCG, the shares were purchased through off market transactions and the same were dematerialized only shortly before such sale of shares.
Therefore, all the facts point out that the assessee had obtained bogus LTCG for the purpose of introducing his unaccounted cash in the garb of LTCG, on which exemption was claimed by the assessee.
In the case of Sumati Dayal [1995 (3) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the genuineness of transactions could validly be tested on the grounds or principle of preponderance of human probabilities. The Court have held that documentary evidences are not by themselves to conclusive and the truth of the matter or the documents could be determined on the basis of or on the anvil of the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case.
As noted that in the instant case, assessee submitted before us that the company M/s. Neopolymers Pvt. Ltd., in which the assessee had initially purchased the shares in the month of October 2009 had amalgamated into M/s. Vindus Holdings Ltd., which issued shares certificate to the assessee (for allotting 18750 shares) on 19.11.2010. However, on perusal of the stock holding statement of the assessee, it is seen that the shares of M/s. Vindus Holdings Ltd. were credited / appearing in the account of the assessee on 15.02.2010 itself, whereas as per the assessee’s own statement such shares were allotted to the assessee vide share certificate dated 19.11.2010.
Therefore, it is quite unusual that shares of M/s. Vindus Holdings Ltd. had been allotted to the assessee on a date much prior to the date on which share certificate was issued by M/s. Vindus Holdings Ltd. to the assessee. All these facts further establish that the assessee has clearly engaged in fictitious / bogus transaction to obtain bogus LTCG. Accordingly, looking into the facts of the assessee’s case we hold that there is no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1767
LTCG - assessee had 1/4th share in the sold land and building - Assessee's claim of safe harbour rule of 5% variation between stamp duty value and sale consideration for the AY 2012-13 under 3rd proviso of Section 50C - as per assessee AO failed to take note of the fact that the assessee has correctly deducted the consideration of part of building sold from its Written-down value as the building block still existed as per norms of calculation of capital gain on depreciable assets u/s 50
HELD THAT:- AO has calculated the capital gain by taking into consideration of valuation as per stamp duty valuation and ignoring the reality that the assessee has strongly objected the report given by the Stamp valuation authority. It is important to mention here that in the case of one of the co-owners of immovable property reference was made to the DVO for determining the fair value of the property.
Valuation report was received from the DVO and as per the report of the District Valuation Officer (DVO) value of the property was arrived at ₹12,07,89,700/- out of which the assessee’s share would be ₹3,01,97,425/-. Since the report of the DVO and the valuation of the property was at ₹12,07,89,700/-, the difference between the value determined by the DVO and the said consideration declared by the assessee is less than 5% of the sale consideration declared by the assessee. We have gone through the order passed by the ld. CIT (A) and find that the ld. CIT (A) in its order has discussed the valuation report of one of the co-owners and thereafter passed the order in favour of the assessee.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1766
Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) - reassessment u/s 144/147 - illegality of the assessment as no notice u/s 143(2) was issued while framing the assessment order - HELD THAT:- Non-issue of notice u/s 143(2) of the Act prior to completion of assessment constituted a fatal error, for which the assessment order suffered patent illegality and deserved to be quashed.
Keeping in view the above facts, the order levying penalty are hereby cancelled. The order passed by the ld. AO confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) are hereby set aside. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
............
|
9911796707
