TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments to the extent of ₹ 34,50,000/- could only be verified from the two bank accounts and the balance of ₹ 1,62,53,295/- remained unverified - A.O. merely presumed that such payments might have been made/paid by the assessee - no documentary evidence has been placed on record to prove the said contention of the A.O. Thus, the A.O. merely acted on the basis of surmises and conjectures, therefore, the additions made by the A.O. are not tenable in the eyes of law. Therefore we are of the considered view that no liability can be fastened upon the present assessee U/s 69 of the Act. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the said addition. Thus, these grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. Bogus LTCG - Unexplained cash credit after disallowing claim of the assessee of exemption u/s 10(38) - Penny stock purchases - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the assessee had satisfied all the conditions in respect of claiming exemptions u/s 10(38) of the Act as mentioned for claiming exemption, therefore, the shares sold by the assessee are entitled for long term capital gain. The assessee had furnished all the required evidence for the purchase of shares as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e alleged ground that the transactions relating to Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares of Unisys Software Holdings Industries Ltd were dubious, suspicious and meant to book Long Term Capital Gain. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Udaipur, Rajasthan erred in confirming the aforesaid disallowance of ₹ 93,34,545/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit after disallowing the claim of the assessee of exemption of ₹ 93,34,545/- under section 10(38) on the alleged ground that the transactions resulting in Long Term Capital Gain were the result of accommodation entries. 6. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Udaipur, Rajasthan erred in agreeing with the aforesaid addition of ₹ 93,34,545/- made by the Assessing Officer solely relying on the report of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata and the statements of third parties recorded by them in some other cases without furnishing the copy thereof and without allowing any opportunity of cross-examination of the Assessee and without conducting any independent inquiry himself. 7. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Udaipur, Raja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le interpreting the expression sufficient cause for condonation of delay. In case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471, the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that the power to condone the delay provided under the statute is to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to the parties by disposing of the matter on merits, therefore, while considering the matters for condonation of delay, the law must be applied in a meaningful manner which subserves ends of justice and technical considerations should not come in the way of cause of substantial justice. There is no quarrel that the explanation and reasons explained for delay must be bonafide and not merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose such as laches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in the underhand way. If the party who is seeking condonation of delay has not acted in malafide manner and reasons explained are factually correct then the Court should be liberal in construing the sufficient cause and lean in favour of such party. A justice-oriented approach has to be taken while deciding the matter for condonation of delay. However, this does not mean t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he previous authorized representative did not made any submission and the Assessee was never informed for the above negligence on the part of the Authorized Representative. That may be due to some unavoidable reason on part of the previous authorized representative (best known to him) of the Assessee, the representative was not able to give the reply of the notice issued by the assessing officer on time while the Assessee had provided all the information required by the A/R. 2. The A.O had completed the assessment proceedings as per Best Judgment and passed assessment order u/s 144 dated: 27.03.2016 received by us (Present A/R) on 18.07.2016 in respect of assessment year referred above, wherein a sum of ₹ 6,17,66,128/- has been added in the income of the assessee for such assessment year. 3. Further, the assessee aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Ld. AO filed an appeal on 16.08.2016 to the Commissioner of Income Tax seeking relief against the addition of ₹ 6,17,66,128/-. 4. During the appeal proceedings all the facts were duly placed on record and the Ld. CIT (A)- II, Udaipur after considering the same allowed the appeal partly, deleting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd, Tehsil Faghi, which was purchased by the company in its own name. The assessee was only a POA holder for the registry/documentation purpose on behalf of company, moreover on the registry document (purchase deed) it is specifically mentioned that the assessee has signed under the capacity of being a director in the company. Moreover, in our case the property is not purchased by the Assessee and also not in the name of the Assessee. Assessee is only playing role on behalf of the company as he is director in the company. The Assessee is being authorized by the company for purchase of the property situated at Village Dabla Khurd, Tehsil Faghi and for the necessary formalities in relation to the purchase of the property. At this juncture I would like your kind attention to the landmark judgments; In the case of Salomon v Salomon Co. Ltd One of the case was regarding Salomon v Salomon Co Ltd it was held that Separate means that the artificial legal person, the company, can do almost everything a human person can do; it can make contracts, employ people, borrow and pay money, sue and be sued, among other things. In the case of State Trading Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... motive was to increase litigation. I would to place on record the judgment made in the case of Ashok Kumar Rastogi V CIT (1991) 100 CTR 204 wherein it was laid down that Assessing Officer is expected to appreciate the reasonable explanation offered to him, the evidences produced before him about the nature and source of investment and he cannot make the addition merely on surmises, conjectures as well as without any supporting evidences. 14. It is clearly evident from the facts supra, the Ld. CIT(A)-II Udaipur has erred in accepting the claim made the Ld. AO and thus without considering the facts provided during the appeal proceedings wrongfully applied the provisions of section 69 and made an addition to the assesee for an amount of ₹ 1,65,53,295/-. 15. We are hereby submitting the bank accounts provided earlier, details of all the properties purchased (along with reconciliation) by the company M/s Seven Star Township Private Limited during the relevant assessment year, the affidavit furnished during the appeal proceeding. Moreover the facts are completely verifiable from the documents annexed to the paper book submitted with the letter. 16. It is res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Star Developers Township Pvt. Ltd and the immovable property of ₹ 1,97,50,500/- was purchased by the company in his own name. It was further submitted that the company is a legal person different from its members/shareholders and possesses the right to enter into valid contracts for sale, to purchase, to hold, to lease out or take on lease and to mortgage immovable properties in its own name. Being the Director of the Company, the assessee was only authorized to represent the company through Board resolution passed in Board Meetings of the Board of Directors of a Company. Being the authorized person, the assessee was only required to complete relevant administrative, revenue and legal formalities in relation to purchase of the property. It was further submitted that the immovable property in question was never purchased in the name of the assessee rather, the assessee is only playing role on behalf of the company as he was only the director of the company. It was further submitted that the assessee is being authorized by a Board Resolution for purchase of the property situated at Village Dabla Khurd, Tehsil Faghi and for the necessary formalities in relation to the purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 11 Suresh Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) dated 29.06.2020 215-251 12 Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) dated 01.10.2019 252-343 14. We noticed from perusal of the record that the ld. CIT(A) had sought remand report from the AO. The AO had made addition on account of disallowance out of purchase immovable property u/s 69 of the Act to the effect that creditworthiness of the company namely M/s Seven Star Developers Township Pvt. Ltd could not be established. Hence, the source of investment of ₹ 1,97,50,500/- remained to be explained and hence, the addition was made u/s 69A of the Act. In this regard, the assessee through its AR had controverted the comments made in the remand report and filed a detailed submission which is available at para No. 6.2 and 6.3 of the order of ld. CIT(A) and the same are reproduced below. 6.2 The AO's remand report dated 09-05-2018 was provided to the appellant on 21-05-2018. The appellant's AR furnished counter comments on the said report on 05-06-2018, which are repro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his letter. We would like to draw your attention towards certain vital cases and rulings being made by various courts in India. In the case of Salomon v Salomon Co Ltd. One of the case was regarding Salomon v Salomon Co Ltd it was held that Separate personality means that the artificial legal person, the company, can do almost everything a human person can do; it can make contracts, employ people, borrow and pay money, sue and be sued, among other things. It was held in State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. AIR (1963) SC 1811, Once a company or corporation is formed, the business which is carried on by the such company or corporation is the business of that company or corporation and is not the business of the citizens who get the company or corporation incorporated and the rights of the incorporated body must be judges on that footing and cannot be judged on the assumption that they are the rights attributed to the business of individual citizens. Since the land is in the name of the company and assessee is only entered into the agreement for purchase of the land on behalf of the company. Therefore, we request you not to add back the same t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny. Assessee has no concern with this property neither he has purchased nor the property is in his name. We are enclosing copies of Income Tax Return with computation and Copy of Audit Report with complete annexure for the Assessment Year 2013-14 of M/s Seven Star Township Private Limited. Annexure-A' Besides the above submissions, the appellant furnished an affidavit of Sh. Narendra Singh, director of the company and sale deed dated 24-09-2012 in support of his claim that investment in the land purchased at Village Dabala, Tehsil Fagi, Jaipur was in fact made by the company M/s. Seven Star Township Pvt. Ltd. Considering the details and evidences produced by the appellant, my ld. predecessor vide letter No. CIT(A)-2/UDR/2019-20/737 dated 31-07-2019 required the AO to submit remand report on the specific issues after taking into consideration the evidences produced by the assessee. As regards the addition of ₹ 1,97,05,550/- made on account of unexplained investment in the land purchased at Village Dabala and in order to ascertain the veracity of the appellant's claim that all payments were made by Seven Star Township Pvt. Ltd. by cheques from Axis Bank ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of examining 04 cheques of ₹ 36,11,770/- has not been found to be made from the bank account of the assessee company as no such payment / cheques are debited in the bank account of the assessee company with Punjab National Bank, Vasihali Nagar, Jaipur. It is suspected that the payment of the amount of ₹ 36,11,770/- is paid to the land owners either by the assessee or the company in cash. 2.2. As per the sale deed of the land the company of which has been forwarded to this office, payment of ₹ 1,36,84,0765/- has been made to the land owner Sh. Bheru Singh by cheque as per the detail given at page no. 13 of the sale deed. On the examination of the bank statement of the company M/s Seven Star Township Developers Private Limited it has been revealed that the payment of ₹ 25,00,000/- only has been made to Sh. Bheru Singh on 18.04.2013 by clearing. It means the company has not made the payment of the remaining amount of ₹ 1,11,84,075/- to Sh. Bheru Singh which is apparent from the bank statement of the company obtained from the bank. It is suspected that this amount of ₹ 1,11,84,075/- has been paid to the land owners either by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p Developers Private Limited vide cheque no. 620494,620495 and 620496 for the payment of ₹ 3,32,000/- , ₹ 9,95,750/- ₹ 1,29,700,1- were found to be correct. 3. In the reply of point No. 2.1, 2.2 2.3 of remand report, the assessing officer duly verified another bank account i. e Punjab National Bank Account No. 4144002100009766 held in the name of Ws Seven Star Township Developers Private Limited and payments made from the same account for the purchase of said land to the various land owners. The ld. assessing officer has duly confirmed that the payment of ₹ 9,50,000/- and. ₹ 25,00,000/- was made through the PNR bank account held in the name of company Ws Seven Star Township Developers Private Limited hence its is prima facie proved that the both the bank accounts were operated in the name of said company and payments were made by the company to the land owners through these bank account hence assessee Shri Late Satpal Singh has no monetary transaction in relation to the purchase of land said land. Further, the Ld assessing officer has erred in his reply of remand report stating that the remaining amount of ₹ 36,11,770/- and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inancial year 2013-14 for your reference we are also enclosing the bifurcation of closing inventories of the company M/s Seven Star Township Private Limited as on 31.03.2013, which includes land, cost of ₹ 19705000/-: 4. In the reply of point No. 3 of remand report the assessing officer has mentioned that the company M/s Seven Star Township Developers Private Limited has deposited cash of ₹ 89,41,000/- in F.Y 2012-2013 and ₹ 33,62,000/- in F.Y. 2013-14, as the above cash was deposited in the account of the company there we would request your good self to kindly question the company for the same. In the appellant's case, the last hearing was conducted on 21-01-2020. Sh. Rounak Khandelwal, FCA attended and relied on various written submissions /details / evidences made earlier. The appellant's written submissions, details and evidences brought on record by the appellant and AO's remand reports and appellant's counter comments thereon have been duly considered while deciding the issue at hand. 15. After having meticulously gone through the facts of the present case as well as orders passed by the Revenue authorities and material pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with a registered document moreover, registered documents are got registered before the registering authority and the Registrar carries out or executes the registration of a document during discharge of his official duties, therefore, more presumption of correctness is attached with the registration of a document. It is also an admitted fact that the assessee only being the Director of the company and power of attorney holder was entitled to perform legal formalities for the purpose of registration of sale deed. The Revenue has not placed on record even a single document to demonstrate that the assessee had any financial interest in the land purchased by the company. Even no document has been placed on record to show that at any stage, the sale consideration was ever paid by the assessee from his bank accounts. On the contrary, the assessee had also furnished an affidavit to this effect which is sworn by Shri Narendra Singh, another Director of the company who also reiterated the same stand taken by the assessee. It is also a fact that the company is a separate legal entity as distinct from its Members, therefore, it is separate at law from its share holders, Directors, promoters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y acting as a power of attorney holder on behalf of the company which is specifically mentioned in the sale deed itself and thus in this way, the capacity of the assessee was only that of a power of attorney holder. Since the property belongs to assessee i.e. M/s Seven Star Township Pvt. Ltd. and the company had already shown the said property in their financial statements for the year under consideration and the said documents have not been rebutted or controverted by the Revenue at any stage of proceeding. Since the assessee had acted only as a power of attorney holder, therefore, no liability could have been fastened upon the assessee on behalf of the company. In this respect, we draw strength from the decision in the case of Salomon v Salomon Co. Ltd wherein it was held that Separate means that the artificial legal person, the company, can do almost everything a human person can do; it can make contracts, employ people, borrow and pay money, sue and be sued, among other things. We also draw strength from the decision in the case of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. AIR (1963) SC 1811 wherein it was held that once a company or corporation is formed, the business which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the present assessee U/s 69 of the Act. Therefore, we direct the A.O. to delete the said addition. Thus, these grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 19. Ground Nos. 4 to 8 of the appeal raised by the assessee are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of ₹ 93,34,545/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit after disallowing claim of the assessee of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and therefore, we thought it fit to decide these grounds through the present consolidated order. 20. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the written submissions submitted before the Bench and same are reproduced as below. 1. The assessee filed Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on 23.09.2013 and during the regular assessment proceedings the previous authorized representative did not made any submission and the Assessee was never informed for the above negligence on the part of the Authorized Representative. That may be due to some unavoidable reason on p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts evidencing payments for purchase of shares and receipts against sale of shares by account payee cheques. 8. During the assessment year 2010-11 assessee had purchased shares of Unisys Softwares Holdings Ind. Ltd. on 16/03/2010 vid cheque no. 0004936 amounting to ₹ 11,50,000/-. Assessee had 50,000 shares of Unisys Softwares Holdings Ind. Ltd. which were duly credited to his demat account on 30/06/2010. Details of purchase and sale with contract notes are annexed to the paper book submitted, details synopsis of the same is provided below for your kind perusal; S. No. Particulars Date Details 1. Purchase of Shares 16/03/2010 50,000 shares of Unisys Softwares Holdings Ind. Ltd. 2. Credit to Demat Account 30/06/2010 Transfer of 50,000 shares of Unisys Softwares Holdings Ind. Ltd. to Demat 3. Sale of Shares 09/04/2012 35,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.2019 It is therefore categorically submitted that based on all the facts and upon studying the same with the above mentioned judgments the long term capital gain arising out of such sale is correct and the AO has passed such order based on conjectures and without studying the facts of the matter to make his opinion. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case it is requested that impugned addition of ₹ 93,34,545/- made by the Ld. CIT (A)- II, Udaipur is wrong and bad in law may very kindly be deleted. 21. On the contrary, ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue has relied upon the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 22. We have heard the ld. Counsels of both the parties and have perused the material placed on record. We have also deliberated upon the decisions cited in the orders passed by the authorities below as well as cited before us and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities. As per facts of the present case, we noticed that assessee had shown capital gain of ₹ 93,34,545/- and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. In this regard, the AO had sought information from the assessee to provide t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d contract notes for sale of shares, Demat account and bank statements evidencing payments for purchase of shares and receipts against sale of shares by account payee cheques. Further, we would like to draw your attention on the circular issued by CBDT. dated: 29.02.2016, Circular no. 6/2016, which says: CBDT realizing that major part of shares /securities transactions takes place in respect of the listed shares ones and with a view to reduce litigation and uncertainty in that matter, in partial modification to the earlier circulars no. 04 of 2007 dated June 15, 2007. In this circular it further instructs that assessing officers in holding whether the surplus generated from sale of listed or other securities would be treated as Capital Gain or Business Income, shall take into the account the following: a. Where assessee itself irrespective of the period of holding the listed shares and securities, opts to treat as stock-in trade, the income arising from transfer of such shares /securities would be treated as its business income. b. In Respect of listed shares and securities held for more than 12 months immediately from the date of transfer, if ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entioned above. The shares sold by the Assessee are long term capital asset and also STT paid. We hereby furnish all the evidences for purchase of shares as well as sale of shares, which inter alia included copies of bills for purchase of shares- and contract notes for sale of shares, Demat account and bank statements evidencing payments for purchase of shares and receipts against sale of shares by account payee cheques. Annexure-B However assessee has sold 50000 shares of Unisys Software holdings Industries limited which is listed on the stock exchange. After considering the above circular the same was treated as per desire of assessee i.e. Long Term capital gain from shares and this will not be put to dispute by Assessing Officer. Therefore, we request you not to add back the same to the total income of the assessee. 24. However, the ld. DR submitted that assessee had purchased shares of M/s Unisys Software @ ₹ 23 per share on 16.03.2010 which were surprisingly sold @ ₹ 209 to 211 per share on 12.04.2012 within a period of two years, however, the financial position of the company was not increased during this period that clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 103-106 12 CIT vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 412 dt. 161 SC 107-120 13 Rameshwar Lal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj. HC) 121-122 14 SEBI vs. Rakhi Trading civil appeal No. 1969 of 2011 order dt. 08.02.2018 (Relevant pages only) 123-128 26. It was further submitted by the ld. DR that these judgments and documents as submitted by the assessee mainly to hide the real nature of transaction. It was submitted that by analyzing the balance sheet, profit loss account and the trade pattern of Unisys Software and Holding Industries Ltd. during the relevant year, it was observed that the share price of this company was neither affected by the movement of sensex nor the financials of the company justified such extraordinary jump in the price of its shares. Therefore, the claim of capital gain of the assessee cannot be accepted as genuine. 26.1 After hearing both the parties and after perusing the material available on record as well as the documents placed on record, we notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ares sold 5. Sale of Shares 12/04/2012 4,000 shares sold 29. During the relevant assessment year, assessee sold such shares and made a long term capital gain of ₹ 93,34,545/-, per se it is very evident that assessee held such shares for a period of more than 12 months before selling them and such long term capital gain is exempt as per the section 10(38) of the Act. However, the ld. CIT(A) considering while relying upon various judgments on different facts denied the claim of the assessee. However, we are of the view that while deciding the claim of the assessee, the authorities have to be guided by legal evidence in each particular case and not on general observation. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision in the case of Vijayrattan Balkrisham Mittal vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) had concluded that the fact that a scam has taken place in some penny stocks does not mean that all transactions in penny stocks can be regarded as bogus. In deciding whether the claim is genuine or not, the authorities have to be guided by the legal evidence and not on general observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew the aforesaid Circulars issued by the CBDT. 31. Since the assessee had sold 50,000/- share of Unisys Software and Holding Industries Ltd. which is listed on the stock exchange. Therefore, while taking into consideration, circular issued by CBDT dated 29.02.2016, bearing Circular No. 6/2016 and also decisions in the following cases i.e. Deepak Kumar Agarwal HUF vs ITO Ward 2(3) ITA 223 222/JP/2020 (ITAT Jaipur) dated 09.02.2021 CIT vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal (DB Appeal No. 385/2011 dated 11.09.2017) PCIT vs Pramod Jain others (DB Appeal No. 209/2018 dated 24.07.2018) Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT (1236/KOL/2017 dated 18.08.2017) DCIT vs. Saurabh Mittal (ITA No. 16/JP/2018 dated 29.08.2018) Meghraj Singh Shekhawat vs. DCIT (ITA No. 444/JP/17 dated 07.03.2018) PCIT vs Smt. Krishna Devi (Delhi High Court) dated 15.01.2021 Achal Gupta vs. ITO (ITAT Lucknow) dated 16.12.2020 Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai) dated 11.08.2020 Gateway Leasing Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court) dated 11.03.2020 Suresh Kumar Agarwal vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi) dated 29.06.2020 Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and rejected all the claims made by the assessee by relying on the report of the Investigation Wing and thereby made the addition, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. I further find that the AO has given detailed explanation in the order regarding the modus operandi of bogus LTCG scheme but failed to substantiate how the assessee fell in the purview of the same without bringing any material on record and proving that the assesssee was directly involved in the so called bogus transaction. I further note that the addition in dispute made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 as unexplained credit instead of long term capital gain as claimed by the assessee, however, the source identity and genuineness of the transaction having been established by documentary evidences and there is no case for making addition u/s 68 of the Act, hence, the same deserve to be deleted. I note that in most of the case laws of the Hon ble High Courts referred by the Ld. DR the reason on the basis of addition was confirmed was that the assessee had not tendered cogent evidence with regard to share transaction, however, in the present the case assessee has submitted all the documents / evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 12,59,000/- made by the AO on the basis of seized document on the grounds that the AO has not pointed out as to how the figures of ₹ 12.59 lacs has been worked out ignoring the fact that the assessee himself in his reply to the AO had tried to explain the source of the receipts of ₹ 12,59,000/- instead of challenging the working out of the said figure by the AO? 3. The first three questions of law raised in this appeal are covered against the appellant by an order and judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 16.02.2017 in ITA-18-2017 titled as The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Sh. Hitesh Gandhi, Bhatti Colony, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahar. 4. The issue in short is this : The assessee purchased shares of a company during the assessment year 2006-07 at ₹ 11/- and sold the same in the assessment year 2008- 09 at ₹ 400/- per share. In the above case, namely, ITA 18-2017 also the assessee had purchased and sold the shares in the same assessment years. The AO in both the cases added the appreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
