9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of proceedings u/s 147. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 11,26,023/- made on account of unexplained receipts shown as receipt on sale of shares. Summary: 1. Validity of proceedings u/s 147: The cross-objection challenging the validity of proceedings u/s 147 was not pressed by the learned AR of the assessee and thus, it stands dismissed as not pressed. 2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 11,26,023/- made on account of unexplained receipts shown as receipt on sale of shares: The Assessing Officer (AO) received information from Addl. DIT(Inv), Agra that M/s North India Securities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi had provided bogus entries of sale proceeds of shares to the assessee. The AO took action u/s 147 of the Act and issued notices u/s 142(1) & 143(2). The assessee submitted necessary details, including share application, allotment advice, and share certificates, claiming exemption u/s 54EC of the Act. However, the AO assessed the entire amount of Rs. 11,03,945/- plus Rs. 22,078/- as commission paid, aggregating to Rs. 11,26,023/-, as income from undisclosed sources. In appeal, the CIT(A) considered the arguments, material on record, and various decisions cited, and deleted the addition. The CIT(A) noted that there was no material other than a list showing long-term capital gains on sale of shares shown by various individuals, including the appellant, through the broker North India Securities Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. The CIT(A) found no adverse/incriminating material implicating the companies involved in these transactions. The AO failed to refute the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The learned DR argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without appreciating the facts brought on record by the AO. The learned AR contended that all relevant documents and evidence were submitted, and the AO failed to prove these documents were false or fabricated. The AO did not make any independent enquiry from the company or the broker. The Tribunal found no material on record to substantiate the AO's stand that there was no actual purchase and sale of shares by the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the department to prove the allegation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished all relevant documentary evidence, and the AO failed to prove these documents were false or fabricated. The Tribunal also highlighted that the AO accepted similar transactions for other shares as genuine. The Tribunal concluded that the AO was not justified in partly accepting and partly disbelieving dealings of shares from the same broker in identical facts and circumstances. The Tribunal found that the AO's observation regarding the increase in share prices was not a sufficient basis for doubting the transactions. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding it well-reasoned and not calling for any interference. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee were dismissed. The order pronounced in the open court on 08.04.11.
|
