TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 2004X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. AO shall require the assessee; to establish who, with whom, how and in what circumstances the impugned transactions were carried out etc., to prove that the impugned transactions are actual , genuine etc. The assessee shall comply to the A O s requirements as per law. On appreciation of all the above aspects, the AO would decide the matter in accordance with law. - I.T.A. No. 2966/Chny/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2019 - SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr.V.S. Jaya Kumar, Advocate Mr.F.C. Jain, CA For the Respondent : Mr. Sridhar Dora, JCIT ORDER Per S. JAYARAMAN, AM: The assessee filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai, in ITA No. 104/17-18/CIT(A)-10 dated 29.08.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. Mrs. Madhu V Jhaver, the assessee is an individual deriving salary income and income from Capital Gains. In the assessment proceedings. the AO had noticed that the assessee had p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tune of Rs. 77,36,184/- 2. The order of the DClT, Non-Corporate Circle 9 (1), Chennai is against the facts of the case, the provisions of law, and is unreasonable and perverted. 3. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)- 10 ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant is a bonafide investor and has claimed the exemption u/s 10(38) after satisfying all the conditions. 4. All the evidences in the form of purchase and sale contracts of shares and D-mat account and bank account etc. and explanation offered by the appellant are brushed aside without finding any fault with any of them by both authorities. 5. The AO and the CIT(A)- 10 have failed to provide the evidences collected by the dept. behind the back of the appellant for her rebuttal. 6. The DCIT, Non-Corporate Circle 9(1) and the CIT(A)- 10 both have ignored the explanation given by the appellant as to why this receipt should not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. 7. The orders of the DCIT and the CIT(A)- 10 are based on the conjuncture surmise and not on the facts evidence. 8. For these and other grounds of appeal to be adduced at the time of hearing, the appellant prays your learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who seek it, the onus therefore lies on the assessee. In order to claim the exemption from payment of income tax, the assessee had to put before the Income Tax authorities proper materials which would enable to come to a conclusion. (35 ITR 312) (SC). Thus, the A O must keep in mind that the onus of proving the exemption rests on the assessee. If the A O does have any evidence to the contrary, it is to be put to the assessee for his rebuttal. The internal communications of the Revenue are evidences for drawing an opinion on possible wrong claims but they are not the final evidence. Further, perusal of assessee s case shows that it is similar to the facts in the case of Shri Heerachand Kanunga referred to supra. The relevant portions from that order is extracted as under :- 9. A perusal of the facts in the present case admittedly given room for suspicion. However, assessments are not to be done on the basis of mere suspicion. It has to be supported by facts and the facts are unfortunately not forthcoming in the Assessment Order, in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) nor from the side of the assessee. The main foundation of the assessment in the present case is the statement of one Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee or is this the only one of transaction. Thus, clearly the facts required for adjudicating the appeals are not forthcoming. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the assessee has held the shares for more than 12 months. This is because assuming that the demat has been done and the shares of M/s.BPL has come into the assessee s demat account and has immediately flown out. Then the factum of the possession of the shares for more than 12 months have to be proved by the assessee. This is also not forthcoming. In reply to a specific query, as the date of the demat of shares, it was submitted by the Ld.AR that the demat was done on various dates. Then the question rises as to why there is so much of difference in the dates of demating when 15000 shares have been purchased together on 24.04.2008. No details in respect of M/s.BPL company is known, what is the product of the company which had lead to the share value of the company to go up from Rs.20/- to Rs.352/- in a period of two years. This would clearly be a case where the share value of the company was hitting the circuit breaker of the stock exchange on a daily basis and obviously it would have drawn attention. This being so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
