TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thing more which was required, which would connect the present Assessee to the transactions and which are attributed to the Promoters/Directors of the two companies - the Tribunal referred to the entire material and found that the investigation stopped at a particular point and was not carried forward by the Revenue - There are 1,30,000 shares of Bolton Properties Ltd. purchased by the Assessee during the month of January 2003 and he continued to hold them till 31 March 2003. The present case related to 20,000 shares of Mantra Online Ltd for the total consideration of ₹ 25,93,150. The contract notes in Form-A with two brokers were available and which gave details of the transactions - The contract note is a system generated and pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the CIT (A) under section 68 of the IT Act 1961? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the finding recorded by the Tribunal contrary to the record and thus perverse? Additional question in Income Tax Appeal No.1568 of 2012 (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is correct in law in deleting the disallowance of claim of loss of ₹ 5,95,720/- incurred on the sale of share capital market Ltd.? 2. Mr.Sureshkumar would submit that the Tribunal seriously erred and in law in reversing the finding of fact by the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer. That was based on a report of the Investigation Branch of the Department, Bhuvaneshwar. That revealed and as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utta, which itself raises doubt about the genuineness of the transaction. The entities/ companies, whose shares were traded on exchange namely M/s.Bolton Properties Ltd., Prime Capital and M/s.Mantra were not having sufficient business activities justifying the increase in their shares prices. The Commissioner, therefore, concluded that certain operators and brokers devised a scheme to convert the unaccounted money of the Assessee to accounted income and the Assessee utilized this scheme. Therefore, the claim that the Assessee earned capital gain was disallowed and addition of ₹ 25,93,150/- made under section 68 of the IT Act was upheld. 3. Mr.Sureshkumar seriously complained that such finding rendered concurrently should not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s because another view was possible. It interfered because it was required to interfere with them as the Commissioner and the Assessing Officer failed to note some relevant and germane material. In these circumstances, he submits that the Appeals do not raise any substantial question of law and deserve to be dismissed. 5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is placed by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively referred to the correspondence and the contents of the report of the Investigation carried out in paras 20, 20.1, 20.2 and 21 of his order, what was important and vital for the purpose of the present case was whether the transactions in shares were genuine or sham and bogus. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould connect the present Assessee to the transactions and which are attributed to the Promoters/Directors of the two companies. The Tribunal referred to the entire material and found that the investigation stopped at a particular point and was not carried forward by the Revenue. There are 1,30,000 shares of Bolton Properties Ltd. purchased by the Assessee during the month of January 2003 and he continued to hold them till 31 March 2003. The present case related to 20,000 shares of Mantra Online Ltd for the total consideration of ₹ 25,93,150/-. These shares were sold and how they were sold, on what dates and for what consideration and the sums received by cheques have been referred extensively by the Tribunal in para 10. A copy of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Even the additional question cannot be said to be substantial question of law, because it arises in the context of same transactions, dealings, same investigation and same charge or allegation of accommodation of unaccounted money being converted into accounted or regular as such. The relevant details pertaining to the shares were already on record. This question is also a fall out of the issue or question dealt with by the Tribunal and pertaining to the addition of ₹ 25,93,150/-. Barring the figure of loss that is stated to have been taken, no distinguishable feature can be or could be placed on record. For the same reasons, even this additional question cannot be termed as substantial question of law. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
