ITO- 20(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMT. GEETA ASHOK KUMAR DAVE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6348/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 October 2021AY 2009-104 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of the alleged share sale transaction by the assessee. The assessee had provided evidence of purchasing shares, not selling them, and the Revenue failed to controvert this.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting an addition of Rs. 33,60,000. The AO alleged the assessee received this amount from a bogus share sale transaction with Shrish Chandrakant Shah, who provided accommodation entries.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of alleged bogus share sale transaction is sustainable when the assessee has provided evidence of share purchase and the Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Hearing: 26/07/2021Pronounced: 04/10/2021

ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] ' dated 31.07.2019 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. Sh. Sajjay J. Sethi representing the Department submitted that the assessment for Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 in the case of assessee was re- आअसं. 6348/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) (A.Y. 2009-10) opened on the ground that the assessee has not disclosed amount of Rs. 33,60,000/- received on sale of shares of M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that the assessee had received pay out of Rs. 33,60,000/- against cash paid to one Shrish Chandrakant Shah. The ld. DR submitted that search action was carried out in the case of Shrish Chandrakant Shah and it was found that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries in respect of share capital, share premium, share application money, Short Term and Long Term capital gains, etc., against cash received from various parties/beneficiaries. The assessee is one of beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by Shrish Chandrakant Shah. In First Appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) has reversed the findings of AO and hence, the Revenue is in appeal. The ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that Shrish Chandrakant Shah has floated various companies through which he is providing accommodation entries to various persons.

3.

Per contra, Sh. Karamchand C. Kankariya appearing on behalf of the assessee vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that during the period relevant to AY under appeal, the assessee has not entered into sale transaction of the shares of M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd. In fact, the assessee has purchased 1,00,000/- equity shares of the said company through BSE broker for Rs. 1,92,000/-, the AO has wrongly recorded the fact that the assessee has sold the shares of M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd. Further, there is no transaction of sale amounting to Rs. 33,60,000/- during the relevant period. The ld. AR prayed for upholding the findings of CIT(A) and dismissing appeal by the Revenue.

1.

आअसं. 6348/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) (A.Y. 2009-10) 4. Submissions made by rival sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The solitary ground raised by the Revenue in appeal is against deleting addition of Rs. 33,60,000/- made by the AO in respect of bogus transaction with Shrish Chandrakant Shah. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO has made addition of the aforesaid amount on the premises that there is a sale transaction of share during the period relevant to the AY under appeal. The amount has been received by the assessee as pay out against cash paid to Shrish Chandrakant Shah.

5. On the other hand, the CIT(A) after examining the facts has held that there was no such transaction carried out by the assessee during the Financial Year relevant to the AY under appeal. In fact, there was no transaction of sale of shares by assessee of M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd. The ld. DR has failed to controvert the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue. No documentary evidence has been furnished by the Revenue to substantiate that assessee has received the amount of Rs. 33,60,000/- on sale of shares of M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd. On the contrary, assessee has filed evidence before the CIT(A) to substantiate 1,00,000 equity shares of M/s Prraneta Industries Ltd. purchased by the assessee. In the absence of any cogent evidence, I find no reason to interefere with the order of CIT(A), hence, the same is upheld and appeal by the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit. Order pronounced in the open court on Monday, the 04thday of October, 2021. Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) �याियक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai, �दनांक/Dated: /10/2021 SK, PS

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →