TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be squarely applied to the facts of the present case and principles of natural justice have no application. Applying the said doctrine, we have no hesitation to hold that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares of M/s. Corporate Commodity Broker Pvt. Ltd. under consideration before us is void ab-initio, this is nothing but sham, make believe and colourful device adopted with excellent paper work with intention bringing the undisclosed income into books of account. Accordingly, we confirm the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) and find no merits in the appeal preferred by the assessee before us. Decided against assessee. - Shri S. S. Godara, Judicial Member And Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member For the Assessee : None For the Revenue : Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These bunch of seven appeals preferred by the different assessees for the various assessment years mentioned in the caption emanates from the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Panaji [ the CIT(A) ] dated 04.10.2019 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above seven appeals of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the Assessing Officer invoking the doctrine of test of human probability. 6. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. When the matter was called on for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. 8. Since the issue in the present appeal is no more res integra, covered by several judicial precedents as well as the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj, 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta), we proceed to dispose of the same after hearing the ld. CIT-DR even in the absence of assessee. 9. The ld. CIT-DR placed reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A) submits that in view of the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra), the order of the ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 10. We heard the ld. CIT-DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to whether or not the claim for exemption of capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act is genuine. The material facts to be noted herein are as under : During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant had ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540 (SC). This finding of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the Assessing Officer is under challenge before us contenting that the appellant had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of transactions of capital gains in respect of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. In a case involving identical facts of the case, the Hon ble Calcutta High Court after making reference to the decisions of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manish D. Jain, 120 taxmann.com 180 (Mad.) and PCIT vs. Prabha Jain, 439 ITR 304 (Mad.) had confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that the Assessing Officer had cogently brought out the factual scenario to establish machinations of fraudulent, manipulative and deceptive dealings and how the stock exchanges system was misused to generate bogus LTCG. 11. There is yet one more reason as to why we are inclined to confirm the addition made by Assessing Officer, in view of the well settled principle of law that fraud vitiate everything and even principle of natural justice have no applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been opined that fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal [AIR 2002 SC 33], Ram Preeti Yadav v. U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and other [(2003) 8 SC 311] and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others [(2003) 8 SCC 319]. 23. In State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T. Suryachandra Rao [AIR 2005 SC 3110] after referring to the earlier decision this court observed as follows:- In Lazaurs Estate Ltd. v. Beasley [(1956) 1 QB 702] Lord Denning observed at pages 712 713, No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. In the same judgment Lord Parker LJ observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity. 24. Yet in another decision Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala Anr. [AIR 2006 SC 3028] it has been held that no court will allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud and no court, by way of rule of evidence and procedure, can allow its eyes t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
