Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1517 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Held that:- We find that while deciding the appeal the FAA had passed a very cryptic order without assigning any reason for arriving at the conclusion. We find that FAA had not dealt with the submissions made by assessee holding that same were irrelevant and misleading. But, he has not stated as to how the reconciliation statement filed by the assessee was irrelevant. We are of the opinion that FAA should have passed a speaking order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are restoring back the issue to the file of the FAA for fresh adjudication. He is directed to deal with each and every argument raised by the assessee and the documents relied upon by him. The assessee would be given a proper opportunity of hearing. First Ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee, in part Unexplained cash credits - AR argued that it was a case of redepositing of cash - Held that:-We find that the order passed by the FAA is not a speaking and reasoned order. In pursuance of the directions of the ITAT the assessee had filed bank statement. The FAA should have dealt with the arguments of redeposit of cash and motor car insurance claim before deciding the appeal. So, we are remitting back the issue to FAA to decide the issue afresh. The FAA would afford an effective hearing to the assessee. Second ground is partly allowed. Allowability of the loss - Held that:- We find that both the authorities have not doubted that the purchase is made by the assessee, that they had not doubted that the sale made by the assessee, that their objection is about the sale price only, that during the year the assessee had not exported any goods. The purchases were made in the initial phase of AY. and later on same was sold. If the transaction in question resulted in loss same should not be disallowed merely because purchaser was a related concern. We also agree with the assessee that if he had valued the stock at market rate it would have resulted in loss. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the FAA was not justified in rejecting the claim made by the AO. Sale of flat - LTCG OR STCG - period of holding - AR stated that the flat was sold within a period of three years, that it was a clear cut case of STCG - Held that:- As in the case of Anita Kanjani [2017 (2) TMI 788 - ITAT MUMBAI] the Tribunal has dealt with identical issue and has held that period of holding has to calculated from the date of holding of flat. Therefore, respectfully following the said order and reversing the order of FAA we decide Ground in favour of the assessee.
|