What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's action, confirmed by the CIT(A), to be erroneous as there was no material to disprove the assessee's claim of short-term capital gain.

The assessee offered profit on investments as short-term capital gain. The Assessing Officer, however, treated this income as from undisclosed sources without rejecting the assessee's evidence or presenting contrary evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of profit on investments as income from undisclosed sources was justified when the assessee offered it as short-term capital gain.

Shri Surendra Singh Bengani vs ITO | ITAT Kolkata 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Surendra Singh Bengani……...…………....…………..……………...……..….…….........Appellant C/o. Sri S.L. Kochar Advocate 5, Ashutosh Chowdhury Avenue Kolkata – 700 019 [PAN : ABFPB 2869 J] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(2), Kolkata….……………………….……..……............Respondent Appearances by: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri S. Halder, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : October 9th , 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : November 9th , 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :-

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–4, Kolkata (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), dt. 02/02/2018, relating to Assessment Year 2013-14, on the following grounds:- “

1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.

2. For that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,94,471/- in respect of profit on investments on the alleged grounds.

3. For that the appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify, substitute, add to, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds.”

2 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Surendra Singh Bengani 2. After hearing rival contentions, I find that the ld. CIT(A) has upheld the order fo the Assessing Officer on this issue based on surmises. The claim of profit on investments made by the assessee is offered to tax under the head “short term capital gain”. Be it as it may, the Assessing Officer has, merely based on suspicion and without giving any findings, held that the income was from undisclosed sources. The evidence field by the assessee has not bee rejected nor any contrary evidence is brought on record. This Bench of the Tribunal in a number of cases has dealt with at length with the issue. As the assessee had offered the income in question as a short term capital gain, I find the action of the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) to be erroneous as there is no material to disprove the claim of the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Kolkata, the 9th day of November, 2018.

SHRI SURENDRA SINGH BENGANI,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments