Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

Shri Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

…2016/chny/2017 dated 15.05.2018 vi. ITO vs. Shamim M. Bharwani ITA No.4906/MUM/2011 dated 27.03.2015 He also rejected the plea of the assessee for cross examination by citing the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills, 26 ITR 775 and Chuharmal vs. CIT, 172 ITR 250 (SC). He also placed reliance on the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Udyog Limited vs. CIT, 292 ITR 656 and the judgments of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case Udit Kalra vs. ITO on 4.04.2019. Thus, he came to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 4. The assessee is aggriev…