HITESH BALCHANDRA RAWAL,GANDHINAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, GANDHINAGAR

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer since the assessee failed to furnish any substantive documents or evidence to prove his claim.

Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The assessee has contested the addition of Rs. 1,83,55,000/- made as Short-Term Capital Gain, contending that he had not sold any such shares nor received any sale proceeds. He further claimed that his Demat account was fraudulently used by Mr. Pritesh V. Joshi to carry out the impugned transactions. The assessee also submitted that a similar amount has already been assessed in the hands of Mr. Joshi, resulting in double taxation of the same income. However, the assessee has not furnished any evidence to demonstrate that the sale proceeds were credited to Mr. Joshi’s bank account as claimed. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that, if given an opportunity, the assessee would furnish all necessary details, clarifications, and explanations before the Revenue authorities. Considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant bank statements, submissions, documents, supporting evidence and the details of action taken against Mr. Pritesh V Joshi for perpetrating fraud, impersonation or forgery committed before the Assessing Officer. The assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Assessing Officer without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.