Ita/575/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Devi Dass Garg

vo 29.O3.20LL Present: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, sr. Advocate with Mr. DeepakAnand, Jr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue. (common orders) t [APPL. ][5927l2oL1 ][in ]tTA 575/2O1 1CM APPL. 5929/2Ot L in tTA 576/20L19M [APPL. ][5931/2O1L ]in tTA 577l2OL19M [APPL. 5933/2Or.1 ][in ][tTA ]578/2O1r.CM APPL. 5935/2O1r. in tTA 579/2O1r. Exemption allowed subject to just exception. These applications stand disposed of. ,t, cl! sgso/2ou4lpr. 9M [APPL. 5932/2O1r. ]in tTA 577l2Or19M [APPL. ][5934/2O11 ]in [tTA ]578/2O1LCM APPL. 5937/2O1L in tTA 580/2OLt For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay in refilling the appeals is condoned. These CMs stand disposed of. tTA s7sl2oTLtrA 576120LLtTA s77l20LLrTA s78l201 1tTA 579120LLrrA s80/20r.1 In all these cases, common issue arises. The assessees in their Income-Tax Returns had declared Long Term capital Gain onsale of certain shares and had claimed commission under Section 54Signature Not VerifiedDigitally Signed By:AMULYAF of the Income-Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had issued notice toCertify that the digital file andphysical file have been compared andthe digital data is as per the physicalfile and no page is missing. \jl t M/s Nagesh Investment Pvt. Ltd. whose shares .were purportedlytransected by the assessees and also M/s Bubna Stock BrokingServices Ltd. Kolkatta who was the share broker. As no responsewas received to these notices, the Assessing Officer held the viewthat genuineness of the transactions could be proved and on thatbasis the Assessing Officer treated the alleged sale transactions asbogus accommodation entries and added to the income of theassessees as unexplained cash credit. He also added 2% of theamounts in question as expenses incurred by the assessee forreceiving such amounts. We may record here that in so far asassessees are concerned, they had submitted details of paymentand receipt through cheques, bank drafts etc. and had also shownthe books of accounts where these transactions were entered into.The matter was carried in appeal by the assessees and before theCIT (A) who after going through the record accepted thegenuineness of the transaction in holding that the assessee hadsufficiently discharged the onus cast upon them and thus deletedthe additions made by the Assessing Officer. We may record herethat the evidence which were prociuced by the assessees to showthe purchase of shares and thereafter sale of these shares includedthe following:- (i) Copy of share broker bill(ii) Copy of the contract notes (iii)Copy of shares where physical delivery wastaken at the time of sale.taken at the time of sale. Copy of demat account statement showingthat the share were transferred from thename of the assessee after its sale.that the share were transferred from thename of the assessee after its sale. ( iv) (v)Copy of the bank statement of the assessees.1vi)Copy of the bank statement of the shirebroker.1vi)Copy of the bank statement of the shirebroker. (vii) Copy of the quotation on the share market onthe date of purchase and sale as publishedby the Stock Exchange.the date of purchase and sale as publishedby the Stock Exchange. The lrAT while affirming the aforesaid view of the crr (A) and dismissing the appeal of the Revenue inter alia noticed that inregard to the demat account, the shares had been transferred outof the demat account of the assessee and the name of thepurchaser of the shares were also seen in the demat account thatby itself was sufficient to prove the genuineness of the purchaseand sale of the shares having regard to the relevant provisionscontained in the Depository Act. on the basis of aforesaiddocuments, the concurrent findings of fact which are arrived at bythe two authorities below do not seem to be perversed orunreasonable. The Assessing officer could not bring on record anyother details on the basis of which the aforesaid transactions couldbe treated as suspect, iiv The lrAT while affirming the aforesaid view of the crr (A) and dismissing the appeal of the Revenue inter alia noticed that inregard to the demat account, the shares had been transferred outof the demat account of the assessee and the name of thepurchaser of the shares were also seen in the demat account thatby itself was sufficient to prove the genuineness of the purchaseand sale of the shares having regard to the relevant provisionscontained in the Depository Act. on the basis of aforesaiddocuments, the concurrent findings of fact which are arrived at bythe two authorities below do not seem to be perversed orunreasonable. The Assessing officer could not bring on record anyother details on the basis of which the aforesaid transactions couldbe treated as suspect, iiv The issue raised in these appeals is also identical except thatthe shares which were purchased and sold by the assessees pertainto the company called Nisshan Indo Ltd.the shares which were purchased and sold by the assessees pertainto the company called Nisshan Indo Ltd. For the reasons given abpve, these appeals are dismissed. 4 slKRl, J. ,l)a4." M.L.MEHTA, J." M.L.MEHTA, J. MARCH 29,?OLLskb