TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1028X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngh (Judicial Member) And Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) For the Appellant : A. K. Srivastava For the Respondent : Vijay Mehta ORDER Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member) This is an appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order dated 9.6.2014 passed by the ld.CIT(A)-37, Mumbai deleting the addition on account of unexplained receipt of sale of shares of ARSS Infrastructures Project Ltd amounting to ₹ 1,20,00,000/- for the assessment year 2008-09. 2. The facts of the case are that a search was conducted on 6.10.2010 in the case of M/s ARSS Infrastructures Project Ltd and group concerns. During the course of search action, at the premises of Shri Jitendra Mehta, father of the assessee, certain incriminatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w and case law relied upon by the assessee. A search was conducted on 6.10.2010 in the case of M/s ARSS Infrastructures Project Ltd and group concerns. During the course of search action, at the premises of Shri Jitendra Mehta, father of the assessee, certain incriminating material in the form of various loose papers were found and seized, which pertained to the assessee and accordingly, the notice was issued to the assessee u/s 153C of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that Mr.Suresh Gaggar , the related entities, Mr.Jitendra Mehta and the assessee Shri Deven Mehta were engaged in the business of buying, transferring and manipulating the shares of M/s ARSS Infrastructures Project Ltd before its listing on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs have been care' considered. 14.1 As it can be seen that the A.O had adopted the sale consideration @ ₹ 200/-per share at market value on the basis of certain instances of share transaction cited by him as against the actual consideration received of ₹ 13.33 per share adopted by appellant for the A.Y.2008-09. From the submissions of the appellant, it can be seen that the decisions cited by the A.O are not applicable to the facts of the case. On the contrary, the decisions cited by the appellant in the following cases are directly relevant and applicable to the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case: (i) K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Godavari Corporation Ltd. (1993) 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estment. Shares were also reflected in the balance sheet as investment. There is no question in not treating the income from sale of shares as capital gain. Even in the assessment order except in the computation part the AO has mentioned the addition as made u/s.68. The AO has referred to para 5 of his order which para also describes activity in which assessee is engaged i.e. investment in shares. Provision of Section 68 cannot be involved because requirement of Section is nature and source, both should be unexplained. In the instant case both the nature and source of money has been explained and only addition has been made by substituting the actual sale price. Accordingly, addition has been wrongly made by AO u/s.68. 8. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
