TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1032X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x-parte order of the CIT(A) be set aside and do so. No opportunity to cross examine was provided to the appellant and hence the order passed was in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently the assessment order passed was bad in law - HELD THAT:- From the above Para 8 of the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Chandra Devi Kothari [ 2015 (2) TMI 1313 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] it is seen that matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh decision after providing copy of the statements and other related details relied on by the AO. As per the facts noted by the High Court in the earlier paras of judgment (supra) and as per the facts of the case on hand, there appears to be no difference in facts and therefore by respectfully following this judgment in the case of Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra), we set aside the impugned order of learned CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2014-15 and restore the matters of treatment of consideration received on sale of shares of NCL Research and Financials Pvt. Ltd., to the file of the AO for fresh decision - ITA No.3394/Bang/2018 - - - Dated:- 19-7-2019 - Shri Jason P Boaz, Accountant Member And S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in deciding the appeal of the appellant, without intimating the AR of the appellant, though the details were on the record of the authority, and has thereby passed an order without providing adequate opportunity of representing the case, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently the order requires to be set aside on the facts and circumstance of the case. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in not holding that the appellant was eligible to claim the benefit of exemption in respect of the long term capital gain on sale of shares a sum of ₹ 82,98,511/- under section (:;8) of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The authorities below erred in law in holding that section 68 of the Act w applicable to the impugned case on the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Assessing officer is not justified in law in taxing the sale consideration amount of ₹ 96,24,511/- under section 115BBE of the Act on the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in holding that there is no probability of increase in price of a company like NCI. Research whose financials are not very strong, who failed to appreciate that the Share prices fluctuate due to market sentiments, future outlook and various other reasons not merely on financials, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. The Learned CIT(A) was not justified in observing that the companies from which the appellant bought and sold the shares of NCL Research were paper companies, do not have their own existence is erroneous, which can be verified and the details are available in public domain, on the facts and circumstances of the case. 19. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act in view of the fact that there is no liability to additional tax as determined by the assessing officer. Without prejudice, the rate, period and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contra, the learned DR for Revenue supported the orders of the CIT(A). 4.3.1 We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record on the issue before us. As contended by the learned AR, on perusal of the impugned order of the CIT(A) at para 4 thereof, it is seen that the CIT(A) has recorded that on the first two dates on which hearings were fixed i.e., on 12.09.2017 and 04.10.2017, the AR of assessee appeared on the first occasion and sought adjournment which was granted and on 04.10.2017, the AR filed a petition seeking adjournment for four weeks and on the hearing on 08.01.2018, there was non-compliance by the assessee. We find that the CIT(A) records that subsequent hearing notices fixing the hearing for 21.05.2018 and the final notice fixing hearing for 18.09.2018, the notices were returned unserved. Thereafter, the CIT(A) passed the impugned order. 4.3.2 In our view, from the facts laid out above, it appears to us that admittedly the assessee / learned AR did attend before the CIT(A) in the first two hearings and that the notices of hearing on 21.05.2018 and for the last hearing on 18.09.2018 were returned unserved resu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Feb, 2015 (copy of which has been placed on record), is squarely applicable. The learned AR has particularly drawn our attention to Para No.8 of this judgement of Hon ble Karnataka High Court, as per which it was held that since the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of fair hearing by providing copy of the statement and related details, the matter is required to be reconsidered by the AO by providing fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee after furnishing details / copy of the statement based on which the impugned assessment order has been passed. The learned AR submitted that in the light of the facts of the present case and as per this judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court, in the case on hand also, the entire matter should be restored back to the file of the AO for fresh decision with same directions. 5.3 Per contra, the learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 5.4.1 We have considered the rival submissions and at the outset, extract hereunder Para No.8 of the judgment of Hon ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra) and this is as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
