TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roper appreciation of facts and material on record rightly deleted the addition. Further, whatever material was collected at the back of the assessee was not forwarded to the assessee. Therefore, same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 226/Agra/2010 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2013 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant: Shri K.K. Mishra, Jr. D.R. For the Respondent: Shri Deependra Mohan, C.A. ORDER Per Bhavnesh Saini, J.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-I, Agra dated 29.03.2010 for the assessment year 2002-03, challenging the deletion of addition of ₹ 10,78,043/- made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, did not accept the contention of the assessee and held that same is not genuine transactions of sale of shares and made addition of ₹ 10,78,043/- u/s. 68 of the IT Act. The same addition was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and assessee reiterated the same submissions and submitted that the assessee made genuine purchase of the shares and also genuinely sold the shares through brokers and all sale consideration have been received from the banking channel and the assessee voluntarily disclosed longterm capital gains in the return of income. Therefore, the addition is unjustified. The ld. CIT(A) directed the Addl. DIT (Inv.), Agra and the Assessing Officer to produce all the relevant material/evidence before him on the basis of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the rival submissions and the material on record. The facts of the case of the assessee are similar to that of departmental appeal in the case of Ram Prakash Garg in ITA No. 237/2011 for the assessment year 2001-02, in which ITAT, Agra Bench dismissed the departmental appeal vide order of the even date, holding as under : 5. We have considered the rival submissions and the material on record and do not find any justification to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition. The AO, on the facts of the case found that similar issue have been considered in the case of HUF of assessee and other family members Shri Rajesh Kumar Garg and Smt. Seema Garg who have also shown long-term capital gains of the simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces before the authorities below to show that shares of M/s. B.T. Technet Ltd. were allotted directly by this company @ 10/- per share and consideration was transferred through banking channel. All the allotment letters, drafts, certificates of the company are filed in the paper boo;. The profile of M/s. B.T. Technet is also filed in the paper book to show that it was a genuine company. The same were shown in the books of earlier years. Therefore, the purchase of shares and source of purchase could not have been disputed. Same shares were sold to the broker, M/s. CMS Securities Ltd. Delhi and all the contract notes, sale consideration through drafts have been filed in the paper book to support the contention of the assessee. The sale rate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contract notes are filed and sale consideration of share is given to the assessee through banking channel and the rates at which the shares are transferred are similar as approved by M.P. Stock Exchange. The ld. CIT(A) asked the Income-tax Authorities to produce all relevant evidences and material before him to prove that the assessee has accepted bogus accommodation entry, but no material was produced before him in this regard. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) on proper appreciation of facts and material on record rightly deleted the addition. Further, whatever material was collected at the back of the assessee was not forwarded to the assessee. Therefore, same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. Since, it is departmental appeal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
