SHRI RAKESHBHAI K. RAJPUT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(3), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2248/AHD/2013Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 April 2019AY 2003-045 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any evidence to controvert the Assessing Officer's findings or support their case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the appeal lacked merit.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold equity shares of Khyati Multimedia and earned short-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer calculated these gains based on market rates three days prior to the sale date as the assessee provided no details.

What were the issues?

The validity of the reassessment notice and the assessment proceedings, and the confirmation of additions for short-term capital gains and unexplained investments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 234B,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad dated 18.06.2013 pertaining to A.Y. 2003-04 and following grounds have been taken:

ITA No. 2248/Ahd/2013 2 . A.Y. 2003-04 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in dismissing the appellant's ground of appeal challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as regards re-opening the assessment. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) ought to have held that notice u/s 148 of the Act and the consequential re-assessment proceedings are invalid. The same be held so now. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in dismissing the ground challenging the act of framing the assessment without issuance of statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition made u/s 69 to the extent of Rs.2,28,600/-. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs.4,09,637/- being short term capital gain on alleged transfer of shares in Khyati Multimedia. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in levying interest u/s 234AB C of the Act. 7. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act.

2.

Ground No. 1 to 3 are not pressed by the ld. A.R. Now effective ground remaining with regard to confirming addition of Rs. 4,09,637/- being short term capital gain on alleged transfer of shares in Khyati Multimedia.

ITA No. 2248/Ahd/2013 3 . A.Y. 2003-04 3. Facts of the case are as emanated from the assessment order:

"On verification of the D-MAT statement, it is noticed that the assessee has sold transferred 1,27,182 equity shares of Khyati Multimedia Equity on various dates relevant to the A. Y. 2003-04 and earned short term capital gains of Rs. 4,09,637/- which is calculated at market rate three days prior to date of transfer in D-MAT statement because transaction lakes place normally three days prior to the date of transfer in D-MAT statement. The detailed calculation is as under:-

The assessee has sold 127182 equity shares of Khyati Multimedia Equity till 10th February 2003 and earned Short term capital gains of Rs. 4,09,636,90/- (Rates adopted are three days prior to entry in D-mate Statement at lowest market price of the day at BSE). Date Transaction Name of Broker / No. of Rule Amount No. depository hares

19/09/2002 6040852 H Nhyalchand 4500 7.55 33,975.00 Financial Services Pvt. Ltd 1 0000473 27/09/2002 6051819 HDFC Bank Ltd /1721826 500 5.40 2,700.00

21/10/2002 6074807 H Nhyalchand Financial 115100 4.35 500,685.00 Services Pvt. Ltd./ 10001269

23/10/2002 6078568 U Nhytilchand Financial 32 4.75 152.00 Sendees Pvt. Lid. / 10001269

31/12/2002 6168984 H Nhyalchand Financial 350 14.75 5,162.50 Services Pvt. Ltd. /1 00004 73

13/01/2003 6191 7 76 C M Parklight Invt. Pvt. LliL 500 12.45 6,225.00 /Rolling Market lot / 0203198

21/01/2003 6206136 H Nhyalchand 1000 14.95 14,950.00 Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. /1 00004 73

30/01/2003 6223096 C M I'arkliglit Invi. I'vl. Ltd. 100 14.75 1,475.00 /Rolling Market lot / 02032 11

ITA No. 2248/Ahd/2013 4 . A.Y. 2003-04 07/02/2003 6236257 Pravin RatilalaSHSTK /1 01 2000 14.30 28,600.00 21 01 3 10/02/2003 6238691 H Nhyalchand 3100 14.40 44,640.00 Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. /1 00094 73 Total sales value 127182 638,564.50 Total Acquisition cost as 127182 1.80 228927.60 per unexplained investment

Short term capital gaiins 409636.90

The assessee has not furnished any details regarding the Short Term Capital Gain of Rs. 4,09,637/- not attended my office. Under the circumstances, I have no other option but to add the amount as undisclosed Short Term Capital gain earned by the assessed during A. Y. 2003-04.”

4.

Thereafter, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

Now appellant has come before us.

6.

We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. It is a case where assessee has sold 1,27,182 equity shares of Khyati Multimedia on various dates during the year under consideration and accordingly ld. A.O. adopted market rate of impugned share on three days prior to date of sale and determined short term capital gain. But assessee could not submit any evidence either before the ld. CIT(A) or before us to controvert the finding of the ld. A.O. He has not filed any evidence in its support of his case before the lower authorities in order to prove that case of Revenue is illegal or unjustified.

ITA No. 2248/Ahd/2013 5 . A.Y. 2003-04 7. Considering the above fact, we do not find any merit and the appeal of the assessee therefore, same is dismissed.

8.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 30- 04- 2019

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 30/04/2019 Rajesh Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals) – 4. The CIT concerned. 5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER

Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT,Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →