Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JABALPUR
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. NFAC/CIT(A), New Delhi dated 24.05.2023.
The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. Considering the fact that assesse had loss of Rs.90548/- from shares, Learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.203300/- made by AO on account of sale of shares.
2. Considering the fact that the sale consideration of shares was Rs.203300/-, Id.CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of whole sale proceeds of Rs.203300/-made by AO without allowing deduction for cost of acquisition.
3. Considering the fact that assessee had filed additional evidence in support of his shares transactions, learned CIT (A) erred in not admitting the same.
4. Under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT (A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.203300/ -made by AO u/s 69 C which provides for addition of Unexplained Expenditure. Section 69 C is not applicable in the case of assesse.
Kishor Kumar Goklani 5. Considering the fact that assessee did not have any dealing with Mr. Raj Kumar Kedia, Id AO and Id CIT(A) erred in making addition of Rs.203300/-relying on statement of Rajkumar Kedia which was general in nature and specificall y transactions with assessee were not found by AO.
Assessment Order is bad in law and on facts.
Assessee is partner in a firm named "Chandrakala" Sweets. During the financial year 2010-11 under consideration, he had remuneration of Rs.260822/- and interest income of Rs. 44328/-as partner from the firm He also had earned interest of Rs.38461/- on Fixed Deposits with Bank. After claiming deduction u/s 80 C for life insurance premium, he offered an income of Rs.278900/-
The assessee had capital loss of Rs.90548/- from various securities dealt with through this DEMAT account with Kotak Securities Ltd. The loss was not claimed in the return. Therefore, he did not disclose the capital loss of Rs.90548/ - in his income tax return.
The return was processed u/s 143(1) on 30.3.2012 and refund of Rs.10770/- was granted.
6. Later, on the basis of information received from DIT (investigation), Mumbai that assesse had invested in scrip of Action Financial Services (India) Ltd with total value of Rs.203,300/, case was reopened u/s 148 and addition of Rs.203,300/-was made to the total income of assessee u/s 69 C on account of investment in the shares of Action Financial Services India Ltd.
Kishor Kumar Goklani 7. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Aggrieved the assessee filed before the Tribunal.
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
The assessee submitted that did not have any transactions with said “Action Financial Services India Ltd”. He has obtained statement of his DMAT account with Kotak Securities Ltd. where no transactions could be found with said Action Financial Services India Ltd. The assessee has also obtained a confirmation from Kotak Securities Ltd. that he did not have any transactions with Action Financial Services India Ltd. during FY 2010-11. The assessee has also obtained a confirmation from a company secretary that Action Financial Services India Ltd. was a listed company. Transactions with listed companies can be held through D MAT account only and DMAT account does not show any transactions with Action Financial Services India Ltd. When the assesse did not have any transactions with the said Action Financial Services India Ltd , the addition of Rs.203,300/- on account of transactions with Action Financial Services India Ltd. just on the basis of information gathered by investigati on wing is totally unwarranted. No record of entering into such information was provided to assessee by the Revenue.
Hence, we hereby hold that no addition is called for in the absence of any tangible material against the assessee found by the Revenue.
Kishor Kumar Goklani 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/11/2023.