TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to believe that that the documents were not genuine or bogus as indicated to her by AO. The sale price of shares was received by assessee through her DMAT account out of which, 10,000 shares of were sold on 2nd June 2004 and remaining 16400 shares were sold on 15 June 2004 through DMAT account. Moreover, the claim LT CG was considered as income under section 68 of the Act, Thus it was a sufficient reply as per explanation 1 of Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Thus the assessee sufficiently explained in the reply to the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. And as such no inaccurate particular was filed by the assessee and the levy of the penalty was wrongly inflicted upon the assessee, hence there is no merit in the order of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 April 2009. In reply assessee contended that the assessee neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particular of income. All the relevant particular e.g. bank account, contract notes, share certificates, demat statements, copy of account with broker through whom the share were purchased and sold were submitted. However, the reply of assessee was not considered sufficient and satisfactory. And AO concluded that during the assessment proceeding, the enquiries made with the broker, M/s Vijay Bhagwandas company and the Bombay stock exchange has revealed that assessee has not made any transaction with them. And AO considered it a fit case for levy of penalty in respect of addition of ₹ 15,01,240/-, and thus imposed the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re held to be genuine and the claim of LTGS was allowed in the hands of assessee therein. On the other hand CIT(DR) relied upon the assessment order u/s 143(3) and supported penalty order by AO and the impugned order passed by CIT(A). 6. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and further perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that capital gain of ₹ 15,01,240/- claimed by assessee was disallowed and added to the total income of assessee under section 68 of the Act. The assessee only claimed the capital gain of ₹ 31,344/-on sale of shares through Vijay Bhagwandas Co, which was also added under section 68 of the Act, in the quantum assessment. We have seen the bills, dated 17 April 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income from long term capital gains as claimed by the assessee or under the head income from other sources as determined by the authorities below. The first aspect to be considered in the case of assessee is that though enquiries were made in respect of several companies and brokers, but the name of broker through whom the assessee had transacted in the shares of M/s. Fast Track Entertainment Ltd. does not appear in that said list. Further, the assessee has produced complete evidence vis- -vis the purchase of shares and the delivery of shares certificates to the assessee and its ITA No.2008/PN/2012 ITA No.372/PN/2014 Mrs Pushpalata Omprakash Bhandari consequent conversion into Jumbo Certificates and further sale transaction through differe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the books maintained by the Assessee. The ITAT has recorded a finding that the source of funds for acquisition of the shares was the agricultural income which was duly offered and assessed to tax in those Assessment Years. The Assessee has produced certificates from the aforesaid four companies to the effect that the shares were in-fact transferred to the name of the Assesses. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the Assessee had purchased shares out of the funds duly disclosed by the Assessee cannot lie faulted. 6 Similarly, the sale of the said shares for ₹ 1,41,08,484/- through two Brokers namely, M/s Richmond Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.Scorpio Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. cannot be disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erein. In the totality of the above said facts and circumstances and the case laws, we find no merit in the order of CIT(A) and reversing the same, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the income in the hands of the assessee under the head 'income from long term capital gains'. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 8. Now coming to the fact of the present case, the assessee submitted her reply in response to the notice for penalty vide her reply dated 17 November 2007, wherein it was contended that sale consideration was paid through banking channel and she has no reason to believe that that the documents were not genuine or bogus as indicated to her by AO. The sale price of shares was received b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
