Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आदेश/Order
PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT
These two appeals by the Assessee and the legal heir of another deceased assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 01/06/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana. 2. Since the issues involved are common and the appeals were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. At the first instance we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 1417/Chd/2019.
The Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 44 days. The assessee moved an application to condone the delay stating therein as under:
“ Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal Dear Sir, The appellant begs to submit as under: 1. That I had filed an appeal before CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana for the assessment year 2015-16 which was decided by the CIT(A) vide order dated 01/06/2019. 2. That the order of the CIT(A) was served by speed post on our gatekeeper Rajinder Kumar on 23/07/2019. 3. That the gatekeeper forgot to deliver the speed post envelope to me. 4. That it was only on 21/10/2019 that the gatekeeper delivered the same to me and this has resulted in delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 5. That it is humbly prayed that the delay in filing the appeal which is un-intentional may please be condoned and the appeal be decided on merits. Thanking you Yours faithfully, Sd/- Adish Oswal “
4.1 In support of the above application the assessee also filed an affidavit stating therein as under:
“Affidavit of Shri Adish Oswal S/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Oswal r/o Spring Field, College Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001. I do hereby solemnly declare and affirm as under: 1. That I had filed an appeal before the CIT(A), Ludhiana for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. That the said appeal was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 01/06/2019 and the said order as per the records of CIT(A) was served on our gatekeeper Rajinder Kumar S/o Shri Tota Ram r/o 105, VPL Colony, Phase-VIII, Ludhiana by speed post on 23/07/2019. 3. That by mistake the gatekeeper took the envelope to his home and forgot to deliver the same either to my mother or to me. 4. That it is only on 21/10/2019, the gatekeeper delivered the same to me and this resulted in delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the delay is un- intentional. 5. That it is humbly prayed that in the interest of justice the delay in filing the appeal may please be condoned. “
During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the contents of the aforesaid application and the Affidavit of the assessee. It was also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was not malafide and it was beyond the control of the assessee, since the delay occurred due to the mistake of the gate keeper to whom the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was delivered, however he could not hand over the same to the assessee timely. He requested to condone the delay.
In his rival submissions the Ld. DR although opposed the condonation of delay but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In our opinion the delay in filing the appeal was not malafide and there was a reasonable cause. We therefore condone the delay and the appeal is admitted.
Following grounds have been raised in this appeal.
That the order passed by the CIT(A) is without application of mind. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of long term capital gains of Rs. 59,15,108/- by wrongly applying the provisions of section 68 of the Income Tax Act and ignoring the submissions and details filed by the assessee. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the facts that the evidence on which reliance had been placed was never confronted which tantamount to denial of natural justice. 4. That the Appellant craves leave for permission to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. From the aforesaid grounds it would be clear that the main grievance of the assessee relates to the sustenance of addition made by the A.O. by relying on certain evidences which were never confronted to the assessee and by ignoring the submissions and details furnished by the assessee.
The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income, declaring an income of Rs. 61,52,150/- on 30/09/2015. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. noticed that the assessee had traded in Penny stock of M/s Jackson Investments Limited and sold 20,000 shares for a total sale consideration of Rs. 61,76,000/- and earned profit of Rs. 59,15,108/- which was claimed to be exempt being Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG). The A.O. also
observed that the investigation revealed that the company i.e. M/s Jackson Investments Limited had done very marginal operation during the period. It was further observed that there was a common pattern in trading of all the 84 scripts including the script of M/s Jackson Investments Limited which were investigated by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata. The A.O. asked information under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) from M/s Jackson Investments Limited and Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) relating to the details of the persons who sold the shares to the assessee. In response M/s Jackson Investments Limited vide reply dt. 03/12/2017 intimated that the company was listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange(BSE) and Calcutta Stock Exchange(CSE) and the shares of the company were publically traded under stock exchange mechanism and that they do not have any control with respect to buying or selling or the price of the shares and that they do not get and possess any records with respect of buying or selling of shares. The BSE also vide reply dt. 13/12/2017 had given the details of Purchasers Company who purchased the share of M/s Jackson Investments Limited on 16/06/2014, 17/06/2014 & 21/07/2014 from the assessee. The A.O. also asked the information under section 133(6) of the Act from the Purchasers of the shares of M/s Jackson Investments Limited from the assessee, however no reply was received from those Purchasers. The A.O. was of the view that the transactions entered by the assessee involved the series of preconceived steps, the performance of each of which was depending on the others being carried out and that the true nature of such share transactions lacked commercial contents, being artificially structured transactions entered into with the sole intent to evade taxes. He also observed that the assessee purchased and sold the shares of M/s Jackson Investments Limited in a very thoughtful and planned manner and that the assessee avoided revealing any details of how such strategic decisions were made by quoting general friends and business associates, whose whereabouts were not known to the assessee.
9.1 The submissions of the assessee before the A.O. was that he had done this transaction through stock exchanges and banking channels and that he had paid Security Transaction Tax / SEBI Tax / Stamp Duty which was applicable for trading of shares.
9.2 The A.O. however did not find merits in the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of Rs 59,15,108/- under section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) • Durga Prasad More Vs. CIT (SC) • Mcdowell Vs. CTO (SC) • CIT Vs. P. Mohankala dt. 15/05/2007) (SC) • Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain Vs. PCIT (ITA No. 18/2017 Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) • Chandan Gupta Vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (P&H) • Balbir Chand Maini Vs. CIT [2012] 340 ITR 161 (P&H) • Usha Chandresh Shah Vs. ITO [2014-TIOL-1459-ITAT-MUM]
Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) and furnished the written submissions vide letter dt. 16/11/2018 which has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.1 at page nos. 8 to 20 of the impugned order(for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein).
10.1. The Ld. CIT(A) also confronted the assessee with the appraisal report of investigation department dt. 27/04/2015. In response to the said report, the assessee furnished the written submissions vide letter dt. 28/03/2019 which has been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 5.3 at page nos. 24 to 36 of the impugned order (for the cost of repetition the same is not reproduced herein).
10.2 The Ld. CIT(A) however did not find merit in the submission of the assessee and sustained the addition made by the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the various case laws which are discussed in para 5.6 to 5.16 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition by observing in para 5.17 of the impugned order as under:
“ 5.17. In view of the detailed discussion above, it is held that the appellant has failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the above transaction and it is beyond any doubt that transaction was just a cover-up to bring its own unaccounted money into its books of account. It is beyond doubt that the assessee has taken entries from M/s Jackson Investment Ltd. which has been found to be involved in the activities of providing bogus long term capital gain to beneficiaries as statedin above paragraph the financial statement of M/s Jackson Investment Ltd. also clearly shows that the assessee has
laundered its unaccounted money through the above concern. As discussed in detail in above paragraph it is beyond doubt that the assessee has taken accommodation entry to launder its unaccounted money through M/s Jackson Investment Ltd. Therefore the addition under section 68 by the assessing officer has rightly been made. Accordingly, this disallowance is sustained.”
Now the assessee is in appeal.
Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without applying the mind and even the facts discussed in the order passed by her were relating to the another assessee. It was pointed out that the amount of LTCG was also wrongly considered at Rs. 1,62,25,132/- instead of Rs. 59,15,108/-. The reference was made to para 2 to 5 of the impugned order. It was further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the detailed submissions furnished by the assessee and even did not confront the assessee, various case laws which were relied by her while confirming the addition made by the A.O. which tantamount the denying of natural justice particularly when the evidence on which the Ld. CIT(A) placed the reliance were never confronted to the assessee.
In his rival submissions the Ld. DR strongly supported the impugned orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the observations made by the authorities below in their respective orders.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the case of the assessee discussed the facts of another case and not that of the assessee, she reproduced the grounds of appeal in para 2 of the impugned order which were different from the grounds raised by the assessee in Form No. 35 which is placed on record. In the said grounds mentioned in Form No. 35 the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 59,15,108/- made by the A.O. while the Ld. CIT(A) dealt with the addition of Rs. 1,62,80,162/- which was not related to the assessee. In the present case the main grievance of the assessee is that the evidences used by the Ld. CIT(A) while sustaining the addition were not confronted to the assessee and that the submissions of the assessee were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). The principles of natural justice demand that the material used against the person must be confronted before taking the decision against the said person. We therefore keeping in
view the peculiar facts of this case deem it appropriate to set aside this case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and by confronting the relevant material / evidence which were used against the assessee. 15. In ITA No. 1418/Chd/2019 preferred by the legal heir of the deceased assessee the similar delay of 44 days in filing the appeal was there and explanation given is similar which was in the case Shri Adish Oswal Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1417/Chd/2019 (supra). We therefore by keeping in view the similarity in the facts, condone the delay in this case also and the appeal is admitted. The facts of this case are similar to the facts involved in the case of Shri Adish Oswal Vs. DCIT (supra) which we have discussed in the former part of this order, the only difference is that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal has discussed the fact relating to the case and not the fact of another case as was in the case of Shri Adish Oswal Vs. DCIT(supra). However the contentions / arguments of both the parties were verbatim, therefore our findings given in former part of this order relating to ITA No. 1417/Chd/2019 shall apply mutatis mutandis in this appeal also i.e; in ITA No. 1418/Chd/2019. 16. In the result, appeals of the Assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 15/10/2020) Sd/- Sd/- संजय गग� एन.के.सैनी, (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAINI) �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member उपा�य� / VICE PRESIDENT AG Date: 15/10/2020 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File