COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III vs. RAJAT LAL

> --) iD .- $-28 f IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI + ITA 630/20t2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Through :'Sh. Sanjeev Counsel. AT NEW DELHI VCTSUS RAJAT LAL ..... Respondent Through : Sh. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BIIAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR ORDER 0s.11.2012 This appeal by the Revenue challenges an order of the Income Tax Appellatc I'ribunal (I'I'AT) clated 11.02.2012 in ITA ll79lDeV2006 for the assessment year 1997-98. 'Ihe impugned order had rejected the Revenue's appeal, questioning the deletion of the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in the circumstances of this case. The assessee in his retum declared an income of Rs.39,18,664. The AO directed addition of certain amount as capital gains after returning a finding that the assessee had sold certain shares during the relevant accounting year. While doing so, the assessee's contention that the shares were sold during a subsequent period because thc consideration was fully realized at that point of time, was rejected. The assessee's appeal was allowed by the CIT (A) but the ITAf, on Revenue's appeal, retumed the addition of the capital gains. In an appeal to the Allahabad High Court by thc assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, being ITA 612005, that High Court considered the question of law for this assessment year 1997-98 and accepted the assesses's contentions. A copy of the said judgment has been shown to the Court. The following questions of law were considered by the High Courl: "A. Whether on the focts and in the circwnstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that capital gains on transfer of shares ..... Appellant Rajpal, Sr. Standing ,/, t id, Signing Date:07.09.2024 17:11:16 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

,4 i'r} i u,ere liable to tca during the previous year relevant to assessnzent year I 997-98? B. [Yhether the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the capital gains rud.r r6seJ,rable in the assessnxent year 1997-98 even u,hen there was no transfer of shares as provided for and contemplated under the Companies Act? C. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erced in law in holding that the ag'eentent y'es one for transfer of intmov abl e pr op er ty. D. Whether the Tribunal misinterpreted the deed of agreentent dated 19.08.1996 and erroneously took the view that the proprietary right in the shares vested in the buyer on the payment of the firsl instalntent. The Tribunal failed to take into consideration that no transfer deed transferring the certificate was ever issued by the appellant in the relevant assessntent year 1997-98 nor was he recorded as a shareholder in the records of the contpany? E. Whether on the facts and in the circuntstances of the case, the T'ribtmal erred in lcnu in taking into account inelevant materictl and ignoring essential ntaterial and evidences on record? F Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse in as mttch as no reasonable person correctly infornted of the position in lav, tvould come to? " In para 29 of the said judgment, the Tribunal's ruling was set-aside and the High Couft consequently answered the questions of law in favor of the assessee. Having regard to these circumstances, which apparently took place after the filing of the present appeal, this Cout is of the opinion that the Revenue's appeal cannot be accepted. Another feature which this Court has taken into account is that the findings of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal in the present penalty are concurrent and against the Revenue. The appeal is therefore, rejected. S. RAVINDRA BHA'[, J Itl"^-, .. R.V.EASWAR. J NOVEMBER O5,2OI2 'ajk' !-