9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) erred in deleting the addition on account of short term capital gains, (ii) the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to allow the deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A and (iii) the ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to allow the claim of agricultural income by accepting additional evidences. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 09.11.2009 admitting income of Rs..3,88,430/-. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] was conducted in the group of Dr. A.M. Arun and others on 01.12.2015 and the assessee is one amongst them. During the financial year 2008-09, the assessee sold shares to the tune of Rs..1.5 crores which was received as a gift from his daughter Smt. Meera Arun. As cap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the asset will have to be reckoned on the basis of cost of acquisition to the previous owner, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to modify the computation and allowed the ground raised by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR submitted that first of all the assessee did not disclosed the receipt of the gift in the original return of income filed and later on claimed a loss of Rs..1.5 crores on sale of shares in the return of income filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. Secondly, the original donor Smt. Meera Arun does not have sufficient source for cash during the assessment year 2009-10 to invest such huge cash in 3,00,000 equity shares. Thirdly, the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee then the cost of acquisition of the asset will have to be reckoned on the basis of cost of acquisition to the previous owner and otherwise, no. Since the assessee has not furnished any evidence either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal, that the assessee held the gift by way of any registered deed document. Moreover, donor Smt. Meera Arun did not have sufficient source for cash during the assessment year 2009-10 to invest such huge cash in 3,00,000 equity shares, which shows that the entire transaction appears to be bogus. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and restore that of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the ground raised by the Revenue stands allowed. 6. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
