RANJANBEN HASMUKH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI

This is assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2004-05, in which she has made a grievance that the ld. CIT(A) did not grant sufficient opportunity of being heard and erred in confirming the action of the AO in assessing Long Term Capital Gain as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.2,08,845/.

The assessee is an individual and filed return of income at Rs.5,33,329/- on 30.3.2005. On the basis of information received from DDIT(Inv), Unit 1(4), Mumbai a search and seizure operation was carried out on the group of companies and other entities managed and controlled by one Mr.Mukesh Chokshi and his associate Mr. Jayesh Sampat. On AO observed that the assessee has sold shares of M/s Buniyad Chemicals at Rs.2,08,845/- which was purchased at Rs.2467/- on 17.5.2001. After claiming indexation on the cost, the taxable Long Term Capital gains has been shown at Rs.2,06,377/-. The AO processed the case u/s 147 and 148 of the Act. After considering the details submitted by the assessee, the AO did not favour the assessee and a sum of Rs.2,08,854/- was added to the total income of the assessee under section 68 instead of treating it as Long Term Capital Gains. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A), who in turn confirmed the action of the AO on the ground that despite of having given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, she failed to substantiate her case. 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. Before us, the ld.AR of the assessee has submitted that the AO made an addition u/s 68 and the ld.CIT(A) confirmed his action. Before, the ld. CIT(A), she could not express her stand for want of sufficient opportunity and the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. AR before us, now prayed that if one more opportunity is granted to the assessee, she would be able to prove her case on merit and hence submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh application of mind. We find merit in the contention of the ld. AR. We find that though the ld. CIT(A) time and again given sufficient opportunity to the appellant but even then the assessee did not produce herself without any plausible reason, if the assessee would get one more opportunity of being heard and no prejudice would be caused to the revenue. Under the circumstances, in our view, the ends of justice would meet, if the cost is imposed for such negligence on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, we called upon the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- on or before 28th Feb 2016. Accordingly, on this condition we set aside the order of the