THE COMMISSIOENR OF INCOME TAX-III, LUDHIANA vs. VIVEK MEHTA ETC, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/894/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093875201014 November 2011Author: MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the findings of fact recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the ITAT were based on evidence produced by the assessee. Specifically, the CIT(A) had found that the assessee purchased 1,50,000 shares of M/s Master Trust Limited for Rs.3,03,000/- through M/s Deepak Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Limited on 16.03.2001, and sold them for Rs.19,54,500/- through M/s R. Kohli and Company on 24.05.2002. The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee had earned profit on shares of M/s Himachal Futuristic Limited and invested it in M/s Master Trust Limited shares. The CIT(A) concluded that these were genuine transactions of purchase and sale at prevailing stock exchange rates, supported by evidence including the PAN of the broker. The Tribunal affirmed these findings. The High Court found that these findings of fact did not give rise to the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana) is in appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh Bench, dated 26.02.2010, for the assessment year 2003-04. The ITAT had upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] dated 30.09.2008, which deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO had treated deposits of Rs.19,50,590/- in the assessee's bank account, arising from alleged share transactions, as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO also added Rs.58,518/- on account of commission paid outside the books. The assessee had declared long-term capital gain on the sale of shares and claimed exemption under Section 54F.

What were the issues?

The substantial questions of law before the High Court were: 1. Whether the ITAT was right in upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs.19,50,590/- on account of unexplained bank deposits from alleged share purchase/sale, as the assessee could not prove the genuineness of these transactions. 2. Whether the ITAT was right in upholding the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition of Rs.58,518/- on account of commission paid outside the books for alleged share purchase. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the findings of the CIT(A) and ITAT indicate that the assessee presented evidence to establish the genuineness of the share transactions. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT was wrong in upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions because the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the purchase and sale of shares. The Revenue contended that the transactions were bogus and manipulated, and the assessee introduced unaccounted income under the guise of long-term capital gain.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 54F,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARAYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 14.11.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ….Appellant Versus Vivek Mehta ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA Present: Shri Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Advocate, for the respondent.

HEMANT GUPTA, J. The revenue is in appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short `the Act’), raising the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) dated 30.9.2008, thereby deleting the addition of Rs.19,50,590/- made on account of unexplained deposits in the bank account, on the alleged purchase/sale of shares, as the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the purchase/sale of shares. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT is right in upholding the order of CIT(A) thereby deleting the addition of ( 1)

Rs.58,518/- made on account of commission paid by the assessee outside the books of account on the alleged purchase of shares. The said questions of law are said to have arisen out of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short `the Tribunal’) vide order dated 26.2.2010 in ITA No. 174/Chd/2008 for the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee declared long term capital gain on sale/purchase of the shares of M/s Master Trust Ltd. and claimed the same as exempt under Section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer held that the purchase of shares of M/s Master Trust Limited, was bogus and manipulated and therefore, the subsequent sale was also bogus. It was thus, held that the assessee introduced his unaccounted income under the garb of long term capital gain and claimed same as exempt under Section 54F of the Act. As a result of the aforesaid calculations, the credit entries in the Bank account of the assessee reflecting sale consideration of shares amounting to Rs.19,54,500/- were found to be unexplained credits and added to the income of the appellant under Section 68 of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax, accepted the appeal filed by the assessee after holding that the assessee has purchased 1,50,000 shares of M/s Master Trust Limited for Rs.3,03,000/- through M/s Deepak Share and Stock Brokers Pvt. Limited on 16.3.2001. The said shares were sold on 24.5.2002 for a sum of Rs.19,54,500/- through M/s R. Kohli and Company. It also found hat the assessee has earned profit of Rs.3,03,575/- on the date of purchase of shares of M/s Himachal Futuristic Limited and invested in the purchase of shares of M/s Master Trust Limited. Such finding was recorded by the Commissioner in Appeal on the basis of evidence ( 2)

produced by the assessee disclosing Permanent Account Number (PAN) of M/s Deepak Shares and Stock Brokers Ltd. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) returned a finding that it was a genuine transaction of purchase of shares through M/s Deepak Shares and Stock Brokers and also the sale thereof through M/s R. Kohli and Company and the assessee has assessed the genuine long term capital gain. Such finding was affirmed in appeal by the Tribunal. On the basis of the documents produced by the assessee in appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), recorded a finding of fact that there was a genuine transaction of purchase of shares by the assessee on 16.3.2001 and sale thereof on 21.3.2002. The transactions of sale and purchase were as per the valuation prevalent in the Stocks Exchange. Such finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of evidence produced on record. The Tribunal has affirmed such finding. Such finding of fact is sought to be disputed in the present appeal. We do not find that the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax in appeal, gives give rise to any question(s) of law as sought to be raised in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta) Judge (G.S. Sandhawalia) Judge 14.11.2011 Meenu/ds ( 3)

More judgments on Section 54F

All 2,628 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54F →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →