Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (1) TMI 572

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... public issue which were held in demat a/c of Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. The shares were transferred to Abhipra Capital Ltd. The sale consideration was received by demand draft. Therefore, the transaction in question cannot be said to be fake and is a genuine transaction. The Tribunal has not committed any error in upholding the order of CIT(Appeals) by deleting the addition - in favour of assessee. - INCOME TAX APPEAL No. - 195 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 16-1-2013 - R.K. AGRAWAL, AND RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), JJ. Petitioner Counsel:- Dhananjay Awasthi S.C. Respondent Counsel:- Krishna Agarwal The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 18th November, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ong term capital gain. The Assessing Officer examined him and was of the view that as the broker had not given details and furnished documents the transaction appeared to be fake, therefore, disallowed the plea of long term capital gains and added the differential amount of Rs.17,54,237/-as 'income from other sources'. The matter was carried in appeal before CIT(Appeals), who vide order dated 4th March, 2008 accepted the plea of the assessee and deleted the addition. The Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal has failed. We have heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the Revenue and Sri Krishna Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. Sri Awasthi submitted that the CIT (Appeals) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as per records of ROC were filed. ii) The payment of the share application money was made through Account payee Demand Draft prepared from appellant's bank account. iii) The shares allotted were transferred to Demat A/c No.DEL/CL4/16179378 with Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. Having DP ID No.IN301127. iv) The shares of the company listed with Delhi Stock Exchange. v) The shares of Focus Industrial Resources Ltd. Were sold through share broker MKM Finsec Pvt. Ltd., 301 Dhaka Chamber 2068/39 Naiwal, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-11005. vi) The details of sale are on record. The details of number of shares and their sale rate are on record. vii) The shares of the company were sold through delivery instruction of the depository acc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... espect of similar type of share transaction. The decision reported in 13 SOT 61 in the case of ITO vs. Smt. Kusum Lata wherein the Hon'ble Bench held that the share transaction was not bogus. The Hon'ble Bench confirmed the order of CIT (A) who held that assessee has filed the requisite evidence to establish the genuineness of share transaction and merely because share broker could not report the transaction to Stock Exchange, it could not be said that the share transaction was bogus. The Hon'ble Bench further held that the burden of proving a transaction is always on the person asserting it to be bogus and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences of a character which would either directly prove the fact of bogu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e the genuineness of share transaction. Merely because the sale of shares fetched a handsome price, which price is supported by official quotation issued by Magadh Stock Exchange, therefore, there can not be any reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale transaction of the shares. It is settled position of law by the decisions reported in 26ITR 776(SC), 37 ITR 288(SC), 63 ITR 449(SC) and 1 SOT 90 (Mum) (supra) that suspicion how so ever strong can not take place of the character of evidence. In this case it is seen that appellant brought on record all plausible evidences as is expected in these transaction, however, the AO has not brought any material on record to disprove the evidences as adduced by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Cour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates