9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of completing the assessment under section 143(3) and making addition of Rs. 14,99,917/- and disallowing the LTCG claim of Rs. 14,99,917/- under section 10(38) merely on the basis of alleged statements of third parties, without providing the copies of such statements and without providing the opportunity to cross examine such parties, thus, violating the principles of natural justice as upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006) and Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT, AIR 1980 SC 2117. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer of holding that the transaction o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it and made addition under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). The ld. Authorized Representative of the assesse pointed that the assessee had furnished various documents to substantiate that the amount credited to the bank was sale proceeds of shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. The Assessing Officer rejected all the submissions of the assessee. In first appellate proceedings, the CIT (A) also brushed aside the evidences and contentions of the assessee and upheld the findings of Assessing Officer. 3.1. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee contended that father -in-law of the assessee Shri Narayan R. Rathi had also sold shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. during the period relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has assailed the findings of CIT (A) in disallowing benefit of section 10(38) of the Act on long term capital gain arising from sale of shares. The assessee during the relevant period had sold shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 14,99,917/-. The authorities below held the sale transaction in aforementioned scripts as bogus and thus, made addition under section 68 of the Act. We find that similar disallowance was made in the case of Narayan R. Rathi (father-in-law of the present assesse/appellant) for the assessment year 2014-15. Narayan R. Rathi had also sold the shares of same company i.e. M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. The issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We, therefore, allow the sole ground of appeal of the assessee and set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, we direct the AO to allow the claim of the assessee." 6. The ld. Departmental Representative has failed to controvert the findings of Tribunal in the case of Shri Narayan R. Rathi whose case is on the same pedestal with identical set of facts. In fact a perusal of the assessment order in the case of assesse reveal that the Assessing Officer in para 8.3 has observed that 3000 shares were jointly held by the assesse and Narayan Ramachandra Rathi. The facts of present case are similar to the facts of case in the case of Narayan R. Rathi decided by the Co-ordinate Bench. No distinction in facts has been bro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
