SAHIL SATISHBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-5(2)(1)), AHMEDABAD

That the various reasons advanced by Ld. CIT(Appeal) in confirming the said addition of Rs. 2,53,000/- are contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on record. Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– 3. The appellant respectfully submits that he has already submitted that he is not the owner of shares of C Mahindra Ltd. and therefore the question of code modification in respect of sell of shares does not arise. The appellant has also filed affidavit confirming the above fact as well as any transactions with share broker Affluence Shares & Stock Pvt Ltd. Therefore, there cannot be any question of modification of code by the appellant.”

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who filed original return of income for the year under consideration on 28.07.2012 declaring total income at Rs.18,93,710/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received by the Assessing Officer that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of Client Code Modification (CCM)carried out by M/s. Affluence Share & Stock Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee had made client code modification in respect of 1000 shares of C. Mahendra Ltd of Rs.2,53,000/- through M/s. Affluence Share & Stock Pvt. Ltd. and same amount was shifted to the account of the assessee. Since the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of these transactions, the amount of Rs.2,53,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, Ld. AR submitted that assessee has not entered into any transaction with M/s. Affluence Share and Stock Pvt Ltd during the year. Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– that as the appellant did not own any shares of C Mahendra, question of selling such shares does not arise. On the other hand, the Revenue could not bring anything on record by way of documentary evidence that the assessee has indeed owned the shares and transferred the same. The Revenue could not get any account of the assessee dealing with share transactions involving the shares of C Mahendra. Hence, in the absence of any material available with the Revenue Authorities about the transactions held by the assessee, in the facts and circumstances specific to the instant case, we hold that no addition is called for in the case of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.