9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee these shares were held as investment and the profits which accrued from the sale of these shares was, therefore, taken as capital gain. However, thereafter, notice was served on the assessee under Section 148 of the Act on 26.7.2000. In this notice, as would be taken note of in detail at the appropriate stage, the main reason for re-opening of the assessment was that the aforesaid shares were to be treated as stock-in-trade and, therefore, income accruing from the sale there of should have been included as income from business and taxed as such. On this ground, in the notice it was mentioned that the income escaped assessment. Re-assessment order was passed thereafter which was successfully challenged by the assessee before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4,167/- instead of non-allowance of exemption under Section 147(iv) of the Act. As mentioned above this addition was made on the same ground, viz., aforesaid income from the sale of shares was to be treated as 'business income' and not 'capital gain' as the shares were held as stock-in-trade and not as investment. This ground raised by the assessee was decided in favour of the assessee in the following words. "33. The AO has not mentioned any entry in the books of accounts or in the other documents seized from the assessee's premises which would indicate that the scripts shown as Investment were in fact not Investment but Stock in Trade. He has also not discussed as to how the claim of deduction has been found to be wrong as a consequence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in his reasons recorded under Section 148 of the Act. After recording the same the A.O. observed that CIT(A) had given a finding that in the absence of any entries in the seized books showing that the particular scrip was actually stock-in-trade and not investment. After extracting the aforesaid portion, the A.O. observed that this finding indicates that CIT(A) has not disputed the fact that shares were held as stock-in-trade. Commenting upon this, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has stated that it is the distorted reading of the order of the CIT(A) passed in those block assessment proceedings. We agree with this observation of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Reading of the order of the CIT(A) in block assessment proceedings clearly de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
