TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "D", New Delhi (the Tribunal) in I.T.A No.5425/Del/2004 relevant for the Assessment Year 1996-97. 2. The present appeal has arisen out of reassessment proceedings. The reopening is not under challenge because that was decided in favour of the Revenue. The dispute is on the merits of the controversy that is concerning an addition of Rs.4,89,325/- made under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) as income from undisclosed sources. 3. It appears that the Assessee had claimed a deduction under Section 54F of the Act in respect of a long-term capital gain of Rs.4,89,325/- on account of sale of shares of M/s Nilamber Holdings Limited and the amount was invested in the purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following further information with supporting evidence if any as why these transaction not be treated unexplain in the light of the provision laid down u/s 68/69 of the Income Tax Act. i. Name of the person/company with complete address from whom alleged shares were purchased. Complete identity of the purchaser/seller of these shares may kindly be intimated. ii. No. of shares purchased and value thereof. iii. Mode of payment by the cash/cheque and source thereof. iv. Prevailing rate of the shares as per stock exchange in the open market on the date of alleged transaction and for the last 2 years as per rates quoted in the stock-exchange as per taxman. v. Please furnish the photocopies of shares certificates purchased, date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and documents furnished by the Assessee, the transaction was not genuine. It is quite obvious that reliance was placed by the Assessing Officer for arriving at the conclusion on the statement of Maheshwari recorded on 8 th December, 1999 and the material collected as a result of enquiries made from Hasija Gulati and Parveen Mittal. 9. The Assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [the "CIT(A)"], which was dismissed on the ground that the Assessee had not asked for the statements of any of the persons, that is, Maheshwari, Hasija Gulati or even Parveen Mittal. 10. Against the order of the CIT(A), the Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. It was the contention of this Assessee before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
