2007 (2) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Tribunal, the following question of law was framed by the Revenue    "Whether the hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case, has erred in law in confirming the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,74,552 by holding that the assessee discharged his onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction made by him, whereas, the assessee could not establish even the identity of the company whose shares the assessee alleged to have purchased and sold ?" 3.  The assessment in this case was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The said assessment was reopened on receipt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was challenged by the Revenue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, on the basis of the material on record, held that purchase contract note, contract note for sales, distinctive numbers of shares purchased and sold, copy of share certificates and the quotation of shares on the date of purchase and sale were sufficient material to show that the transaction was not bogus but a genuine transaction. The purchase of shares was made on April 28, 1993, i.e., the assessment year 1993-94 and that assessment was accepted by the Department and there was no challenge to the purchase of shares in that year. The shares were sold through a broker, who was a registered bro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to have sought some evidence on record, to substantiate his formulation of consideration that the assessee has not filed a return bona fide. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also took into consideration that it was only on the basis of a presumption that the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had paid cash and purchased the cheque. In the absence of any cogent material in this regard, having been placed on record, the Assessing Officer could not have reopened the assessment. The assessee had made an investment in a company, evidence whereof was with the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer could not have added income, which was rightly deleted by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) as well as the Income-tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X