TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addresses can be taken. Thus the above mentioned authorities are squarely applicable to the assessee. In view of the evidences and authorities placed on record by the assessee, in the absence of any evidence or document brought on record by the assessing officer to negate the contentions raised by the assessee, the transaction of sale of the said shares was genuine and resulted into a long term capital gain of ₹ 13,52,6501- to the assessee. Thus the addition is hereby 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. - ITA No: 2504/Del/2011, Cross Objection No.63/Del/201 - - - Dated:- 18-9-2015 - SHRI I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Cross Objection are as under: 1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C/A of the Act which is illegal, bad in law and void ab-initio since neither any warrant/panchanama was made in the name of the appellant to initiate proceedings u/s 153A nor the mandatory satisfaction to assume jurisdiction on the appellant in terms of s.153C was recorded by the AO in this case. Thus, the assessment so framed should be struck down as null and void ab initio. 2. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C/A of the Act without serving any specific notice u/s 143(2) on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registered in the records of Ministry of Company Affairs/ROC. The shares were held for more than a year and then were sold through brokers which were registered with SEBI. The rates of sale and purchase tallies with the rates quoted in MP stock exchange which proves that the shares were sold on the market rate. The share broker did not mention the name of the assessee in his statement recorded by the Investigation Wing much prior to the date of search. The assessee filed an affidavit dated 23/12/2008 of Mr. Dileep Kumar Bhandari stating the facts regarding sale of 20,000 shares of Innovative Finvest through him. The assessing officer did not cross-examine the said person. The assessing officer did not provide any opportunity to the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities: a) Smt. Sunita Oberoi vs ITO(2009) 126 TTJ (Agra)TM 745 b) ACIT vs Kamal Kumar S. Agrawal (lndl.) Ors.(2010) 133 TTJ (Nag) 818 c) Shripal Singh Gulati vs ITO(2008) 9 DTR (Agra) (Trib) 564 d) Shri Gajendra Singh in ITA no. 1898/D/06 by Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench 5.3.3. The facts of the above cases squarely apply to the case of the assessee. In this case, the assessee has placed on record all the evidences to support the sale transactions including the quotation of the said shares on the date of sale which tallies with the sale price of the assessee. No opportunity to cross-examine the broker was given to the assessee. These authorities have held that no adverse cognizance of the fact that the broker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
