9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Bench, Surat dated 07.01.2021 in the ITA No.7/SRT/2019 for the A.Y.2014-15. The revenue has proposed the following question of law for the consideration of this Court; "(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned ITAT has erred in law in deleting addition of Rs. 29,08,385/- u/s 68 and addition of Rs.2,87,047/- u/s 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by holding that the Assessing Officer had failed to bring any cogent or admissible evidence on record?" 2. We have heard Mr. Varun Patel, the learned standing counsel appearing for the revenue and Mr. Tushar Hemani, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-assessee. 3. It appears from the materials on rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so called purchaser of these shares has not been identified despite efforts of the AO. The broker company through which shares were sold did not respond to queries in this regard. Hence the fantastic sale price realization is not at all humanly probable, as there is no economic or financial basis, that a share of little known company would jump from 0.55 to Rs.25.25. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the authorities below. Accordingly, I affirm the same and decide the issue against the assessee respectfully following this decision. Considering the facts of the case, I have no hesitation in holding that the transactions in purchase and sell of shares of M/s. Sun Shine Worldwide Ltd. for Rs.29,08,365/- were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es or demant accounts have not been disputed even in the show cause notice by the assessing officer. The Ld Counsel also stated that in the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made inquiry with M/s. Corporate Commodity Broker Private Ltd. from whom assessee purchased shares. He stated that he sold the shares at Rs.2/- not at Rs.0.55/-. This doesn't help the revenue as Corporate Commodity Broker Private Ltd. has only confirmed the sale of the shares to the assessee. Assessee purchased the shares on 30.10.2012 relevant to A.Y. 2013-14. No adverse inference was drawn in this regard in the Assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 27.12.2017, by the assessing officer in the case of assessee. In order to prove the Sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... draw an adverse inference without any admissible evidence on record, is bad in law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (19S9) [37 ITR 151] (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in [87 ITR 349], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
