TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 882X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound no. 2 before the learned CIT(Appeals), the assessee had filed certain evidences, which the learned CIT(Appeals) did not admit. Before this Tribunal the assessee has filed an order by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sterla (India) Limited [ 2013 (9) TMI 1285 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] . Therefore, looking to the order of the Hon ble Allahabad High Court and the submissions of the assessee, the impugned order on the issue of addition made on account of buy back of shares is set aside and restored to the learned CIT(Appeals) for decision afresh. We find merit into the contention of the assessee on the ground raised against initiating proceedings u/s 271B and applying the tax audit as per provisions of Section 44AB read w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the facts of the present case, inter alia, on the grounds - i. That the total turnover of the assessee/appellant as has been calculated by the AO himself during the penalty Proceedings against him under Section 27IB of the Income Tax Act, was just ₹ 4930283.00 i.e. well below the Applicability Limit of Rupees One Crore; and ii. That according to the own findings of the AO, the net result of the whole Share Business alleged to have been done by the assessee/appellant during the relevant year was a loss of ₹ 4,04,858.00; while Section 44AB and Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act are applicable only in case there is a profit or gain in the business. Therefore there was no question of Section 44AB read with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax on the assessee on this amount would tantamount to DOUBLE TAXATION which is not permissible under law; ii. This amount would, even otherwise, be exempt under Section 1150 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant duly produced cogent evidence in this regard by way of a communique dated 14.06.2018 received from the company, which was never considered by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). A copy of this letter is, once again, being attached herewith. 4. That both the AO as well as the Ld. CIT (Appeals) lost sight of one of the most important aspects in the present case that is that the assessee never claimed any Loss incurred by him in his share business done during the relevant year and as such AO acted in a most unlawful manner by ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who, after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal, thereby the learned CIT(Appeals) confirmed the addition of ₹ 77,325/- and deleted the addition of ₹ 18,586/-. Now the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing request for adjournment was made. However, looking to the facts and the grounds of the assessee, the request was rejected and the appeal was taken up for hearing. 6. Learned Sr. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that there is no illegality into the impugned order. 7. I have heard learned Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. It is seen f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
