9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Long Term Capital Gain shown by assessee as sale of shares of M/s Talent Infoway Ltd. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the fact that assessee has shown to have purchase and sale of shares and declared as Long Term Capital Gain is merely accommodation entries and the share transactions are not transferred through a recognized stock exchange. He even could not provide the name of broker, who had given advise and arranged for sale of shares. Assessee was not aware of the financial performance of the companies in which he had invested and earned huge gains. Thus, assessee could not substantiate his claim of Long Term Capital Gain". 2. Briefly stated assessee is engaged in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the similar issue was agitated in assessment year 2005-06 on the basis of which the learned CIT (A) also examined the issue and deleted the addition. In that year the issue was decided in favour of assessee by CIT(A) and ITAT confirmed the same. The order of the ITAT in ITA No.5302/Mum/2008 for assessment year 2005-06 in assessee's own case is as under: "11. Having heard both the parties and having considered their rival contentions, we find that the AO has treated the said transactions as bogus transactions on the ground thata) The sale transactions were not on the floor of the ASEL but were off market transactions; b) The address of the M/s Buniyad Chemical Ltd. and M/s Talent Infoway Ltd. was the same and the contact person for M/s B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT[A] and the same is upheld". 5. Since the facts are similar to the earlier year and since assessee has furnished copy of the sale bills of the Talent Infoway Ltd and Buniyad Chemicals Ltd, and bank statements including purchase contract notes and balance sheet where investments were duly accounted as on 31.03.2004 and 31.03.2005, we agree with the order of the CIT (A). As AO also relied on the findings in assessment year 2005-06 and the learned CIT (A) also deleted the addition based on the same, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) as the issue was crystalised in earlier year in favour of assessee. Accordingly, the Revenue grounds are dismissed. 6. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
