Ratan Lal Agarwala, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 586/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2014-15
Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ratan Lal Agarwal……..…….....................…………….………………………………………..……….……..Appellant 1, R.N. Mukherjee Road Lal Bazar Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Acrpa 9773 H] Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(1), Kolkata.……………………………….…..………..……………...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sital Chandra Das, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12Th , 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) - 10 Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/02/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Consideration Is, As To Whether, The Addition In Question Made U/S 68 Of The Act, In Respect Of Sale Profits Of Shares Of Essar India Ltd., Is Valid In Law. The Assessee Had Disclosed Long Term Capital Gain On The Purchase & Sale Of Shares Of Essar India Ltd. The Assessing Officer As Well As The Ld. Cit(A) Were Of The View That This Is A Pre-Arranged Bogus Long Terms Capital Gain. They Rejected The Contentions Of The Assessee & The Entire Receipt Was Treated U/S 68 Of The Act. 5% Fo The Same Was Also Added U/S 69 Of The Act, As Commission Paid. The Assessee In Support Of His Contentions Has Filed The Following Documents, During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings :- A) Copies Of Bank Statements B) Ledger Copies C) Demat Statements D) Contract Notes
Section 250Section 68Section 69
…e. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (S C) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction t…