SMT. SMITI GOLYAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1276/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 April 2020AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the AO for verification of shareholding period and details of the amount received from M.P. Golyan (HUF), directing the assessee to cooperate with the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed long-term capital gains on sale of shares and income received from M.P. Golyan (HUF). The Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A) treated the share sale profit as business income and confirmed the addition for the amount received from M.P. Golyan (HUF) due to lack of evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the profit from share sales should be treated as long-term capital gains or business income, and whether the amount received from M.P. Golyan (HUF) is income or a loan.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Not explicitly mentioned

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: Ms. Sushma ChowlaDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Respondent: DR 8
Hearing: 28.01.2020Pronounced: 20.04.2020

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-42, New Delhi dated 16.01.2017.

2.

Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:

1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred on facts as well as in law in holding that the profit of Rs. 10,26,926/- is Short Term Capital Gain, even though the amount of Rs. 9,67,645/- is Long Term Capital Gain and exempt, which is clear from the details of purchase of shares and Balance Sheets of the Appellant.

2. The Learned Assessing Officer. As well as CIT(A) have erred on facts as well as in law in taking the amount of Rs.2,32,000/- received from M.P. Golyan (HUF) as income though confirmation and PAN for which were duly filed.

2 Smiti Golyan 3. It is prayed that the addition of Rs. 9,67,645/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain from sales of shares and Rs. 2,32,000/- received from M.P. Golyan(HUF) may be kindly be deleted.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a director in M/s Nulon India Limited and M/s Nulon Impex Limited. During the year, the assessee has received income from Directorship of the companies and investments in shares and mutual funds. The assessee is not engaged in any business activity during the year as per her own submission. Assessee declared long term and short term capital gain on sale of shares whereas the A.O. has considered it as business income in the hands of the assessee.

4.

Before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee has failed to submit any evidence in respect of holding of shares for a period of more than 12 months. Accordingly, the claim of the assessee to treat the income under “Long Term Capital Gains” has been rejected by the ld. CIT (A).

5.

Before us during the argument, the ld. AR filed the details of share holding as on 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010 along with the copy of the balance sheet and pleaded that the case may be referred back to the file of the AO for verification.

6.

Regarding the loan of Rs.2,32,000/- of the assessee, the addition has been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) owing to non- production of confirmations and other details. The ld. AR pleaded that given an opportunity, the entire details would be submitted.

3 Smiti Golyan 7. The ld. DR fairly accepted for the proposal. Since, the revenue has not got the benefit of examining the details, we hereby remand the matter back to the file of the AO with directions to the assessee to represent the case before the AO without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. We believe the assessee would not misuse the trust reposed in complying to the directions of the revenue authorities.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/04/2020.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →