TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d at ₹ 40.16 cr - assessee have realized ₹ 41.05 cr. on the sale of the securities during the relevant previous year - the excess stands accounted for as income for the current year, i.e., by way of interest for the period 01.04.1997 to the date of sale (Rs.70.54 lacs) and profit on sale of securities (Rs.18.30 lacs) – there was no case for suppression or understatement of income having been made out by the Revenue – thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) – Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 1899/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 13-6-2014 - Shri Sanjay Arora, AM And Dr. S. T. M. Pavalan, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Pitambar Das For the Respondent : Shri Rajnikant Chaniyan ORDER Per Sanjay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Term Deposit for ₹ 2,08,900/- (Syndicate Bank) The total of the three deposits worked to ₹ 42,09,08,900/-, of which ₹ 65,627/- was to be paid to one, M/s. Fair Growth Financial Services Ltd., so that the assessee s net receipt would work to ₹ 42,08,43,633/-. The assessee accounting for only ₹ 40.24 cr., the balance ₹ 184.44 lacs (Rs.4208.44 lacs ₹ 4024 lacs) was considered as unaccounted income in-as-much as the assessee, despite ample opportunities, failed to explain the difference during the assessment proceedings, specifically initiated to bring to tax the said income, and the assessment completed ex parte u/s.144 of the Act. In the appellate proceedings the assessee submitted that it had i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 40.24 cr. (deposits for ₹ 31.02 cr. plus interest accrued thereon up to 13.05.1997 at ₹ 9.22 cr.), as against the maturity value of ₹ 42.09 cr., so that there has been a shortfall in accounting for the income for the balance amount of ₹ 184.44 lacs, being only by way of interest income. In this regard, we firstly observe that the assessee explained that it had in fact sold the deposits prematurely in the secondary market, realizing a sum of ₹ 41,04,81,200/-, so that there is no basis for assuming the assessee to have realized a total of ₹ 42.09 cr., as assumed by the A.O. Two, even though there was a dispute in relation to the said deposits, the same related to the return of the securities held with the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
