9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Counsel of the assessee Ms.Sweeti Kohtari, was ill and due to her negligence these were not filed. It was further stated that Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules is being invoked by the assessee4 for the reason that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed these grounds, without discussion. 1.2. Ms. Sweety Kothari filed an affidavit admitting the negligence on her part in filing the appeal. After considering the submissions, we condone the delay and admit the Cross Objection. 1.3. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue: "1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in law and on facts of the case deleting the additions made by the AO in the absence of complete satisfactory documentary ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this ground of appeal has been allowed after detailed discussion. The same is not repeated here for the sake of brevity. Thus the addition of Rs. 19,10,000/- is deleted and the AO is directed to consider the amount of Rs. 18,48,000/- as long term capital gain as declared by the assessee and be charged to tax @ 10% as offered by the assessee." 2.1. The Ld.CIT(A)-I, New Delhi vide his order dt. 28.02.2011 in ITA No. 97/208-09 in the case of M/s Kamal Kishore Aggarwal & Sons (HUF) for the A.Y. 2001-02 at para 5.3 had held as follows. "5.3 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. The undisputed facts are that the assessee has purchased the shares in earlier year and duly disclosed the same in the balanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out confronting the same with the appellant and therefore no adverse cognizance of the said statement can be taken. The assessing officer did not bring any evidence on record to controvert the evidences filed by the appellant or to allege that the transactions were bogus. Thus there was no material with the assessing officer to reach to the conclusion that the assessee had sold the shares at an inflated rate to claim bogus long term capital gain. The sale price of shares of the said company is duly supported by market rates prevailing on the date of sales. There was official quotation of the MP Stock Exchange on the date of sale which clearly showed that the shares of Innovative Finvest were traded @ Rs. 70 each on 29/11/2000. No enquiry of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y deleted assessing officer is directed to assess the long term capital gain as declared by the assessee and charge the same to tax @ 10%. Thus this ground of appeal is allowed."
2.2. This factual findings could not be controverted by the Ld.D.R. In the result this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
3. As we have granted relief on merits, the legal issues raised in the Cross Objection which were not adjudicated by the First Appellate Authority, are not disposed of by us, as it would be an academic exercise.
4. In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the C.O. filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 18th September, 2015. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
