TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The lower authorities completely ignored the specific ground taken by the assessee before the ITAT and had confined its findings only to the redemption of mutual funds and that too was decided against the assessee on the ground that no evidence of investment in the mutual fund was furnished by the assessee. Whereas on the contrary, the ld. AR strongly relied upon his submissions made before the lower authorities and drawn our attention to the fact that the assessee had already placed on record the various evidences which were sufficient to reach to a conclusion by the revenue authorities but as per the ld. AR, all the evidences filed by the assessee were ignored by the lower authorities by giving a finding that no evidence to corroborate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indly be admitted, considered and the addition be deleted. Alternatively, the ld. CIT(A) kindly be directed to consider the same. 2.2 ₹ 14,82,450/-: The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the assessment of income earned from investment made in mutual funds under the head business income as against Short Term Capital Gain (for short STCG ) as declared by the appellant. The treatment so given by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case. Hence, the income declared as STCG be directed to assess as such. 3. The ld. A.O. further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the order of the A.O. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) again dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the additions. Thereafter, the assessee again approached the ITAT by way of filing the present appeal before us. 8. At the outset, we noticed that the assessee has raised two modified grounds and the same are reproduced below: 2.1. The ld. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in wrongly alleging that the assessee submitted certain additional evidences w.r.t. the mutual fund transactions despite the fact that no such additional evidences has been filed by the assessee even no any application u/r. 46A was filed. Therefore, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the non-application of mind. The A.O. was directed to verify the claim of the assessee and decide the issue afresh by allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee had filed details of redemption of mutual funds alongwith a detailed statement showing computation of short term capital gain in shares and mutual funds. However, it was observed by the A.O. as well as ld. CIT(A) that during the year under consideration, the assessee entered into substantial and frequent sale and purchase of shares which was listed into short term capital gain of ₹ 14,57,125/-. Although, it was specifically pleaded by the ld. AR that income from shares and mutual funds were not a business income but was an i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estment in the mutual fund was furnished by the assessee. Whereas on the contrary, the ld. AR strongly relied upon his submissions made before the lower authorities and drawn our attention to the fact that the assessee had already placed on record the various evidences which are drawn in the paper book at page No. 264 to 268 and page No. 278 which were sufficient to reach to a conclusion by the revenue authorities but as per the ld. AR, all the evidences filed by the assessee were ignored by the lower authorities by giving a finding that no evidence to corroborate the investment in mutual funds was furnished by the assessee. 10. Be that as it may considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we restore the matter back ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
