M/S. SHIVA INSURANCE AGENCY LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3060/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 February 2018AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's claim of treating share investments as stock-in-trade by mistake required verification. Therefore, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee treated gains from share transactions as business income, contrary to its usual practice of treating them as capital gains. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) upheld this reclassification.

What were the issues?

Whether gains from share transactions should be treated as business income or capital gains, and whether a mistaken reclassification by the assessee warrants verification.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. G.D.AGARWAL & SH. KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 22.02.2018Pronounced: 23.02.2018

ORDER PER KULBHARAT, J.M.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – XI, New Delhi dated 01.03.2012 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “1.That the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(Appeal). Error red in upholding the order of learned A.O. considering long term capital gain of Rs. 48,75,874/- and short term capital gain of Rs. 2,97,314/- on sale of shares as normal business income. 2. That the facts and circumstances of the case the learned A.O. error red in not accepting the contention of the assessee that the shares held by it are for investment purpose.”

3. Briefly stated facts are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment, the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”.) by framing the assessment. The assessing officer made addition by treating the investment made by the assessee in shares as income from business. Against this, the assessee is preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) who after considering the submissions confirmed the addition. Now the assessee in further appeal.

4. The only effective ground is against treating the surplus arising out of investment made in shares as business income. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has been showing the investments in his accounts as long term capital gain and short term capital gain and ld. Counsel is further submitted that by mistake the assessee in the year under appeal treated the investment in shares as stock and trade would not change the character of the transactions. On the contrary, ld. DR supported the order of the authorities below and he has also pointed out that the volume and frequency of transaction demonstrates that the assessee was engaged in business activity in trading of shares. 5. We have heard the rival contentions perused the material available on record, it is the contention of the assessee that he has been reflecting the investments in books of accounts and accepted by the revenue as long term and short term capital gain. Therefore, in the year, under appeal also same should be treated as investment. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case. After considering the totality of the facts and the material placed before us, we are of the view that the contention of the assessee that the investment in shares was reflected as stock in trade by mistake, require verification therefore, the orders of the authorities below are set aside. This issues is restored to file of the assessing officer for decision afresh. Needless to say that the assessing officer would afford sufficient opportunity to the assessee. 6. In the result, the grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/02/2018).

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →