Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: due date for vat payment :: TDS :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: VAT RATES :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
From the Courts »
 Commissioner Of Income Tax, Delhi Vs. M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax - 6 Vs. M/s. Mohan Export India Private Limited
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 Vs. Oriental International Co. Pvt. Ltd.
 Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2 Vs. British Motor Car Co.(1934) Ltd
  Vidyadayani Shiksha Samiti vs. CIT (ITAT Delhi)
 Halcrow Consulting India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 ACIT vs. TRN Energy Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Delhi)
 Aditya Chemicals Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Gayatri Aggarwal Vs. Income Tax Commissioner & Ors.
 Paradigm Geophysical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (International Taxation)-3, New Delhi
 Download Companies (Amendment) Act, 2017

Income Tax Officer-33(2)(4) Room No. 101, 1st Floor C-11, Prathakshakar Bhavan BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 051 Vs. Smt. Neeta Ashok Shah B-602/601, Harmony Apts A.C. Road, Near Damodar Wadi Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400101
October, 14th 2015
                       "SMC" Bench, Mumbai

               Before Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President

                        ITA No. 7462/Mum/2014
                        (Assessment Year: 2007-08)

Income Tax Officer-33(2)(4)         Smt. Neeta Ashok Shah
Room No. 101, 1st Floor             B-602/601, Harmony Apts
C-11, Prathakshakar Bhavan          A.C. Road, Near Damodar Wadi
BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 051       Kandivali (E), Mumbai 400101
                         PAN - ARKPS1661E
           Appellant                          Respondent

                      Appellant by:  Shri K. Ravikiran
                      Respondent by: None

                      Date of Hearing:       07.10.2015
                      Date of Pronouncement: 12.10.2015


Per D. Manmohan, V.P.

       This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed
by CIT(A) 35, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y. 2007-08.

 2.      Following grounds were urged before the Tribunal: -

      "(i)   On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in
             law, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in ignoring the
             findings of the AO in the assessment order that the
             assessee did not prove that the transactions in shares
             were entered through a recognized stock exchange and
             ruling in favour of the assessee despite the fact that the
             assessee never produced the demat account before the
             AO during the assessment proceedings.
      (ii)   On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in
             law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence
             of the assessee i.e Demat Alc without giving the AO an
             opportunity in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax
             Rules. No Transaction ID of the demat strips were given
             to the AO. As such the AO could not verify the
             corresponding payments through ECS vis a vis the
             Transaction ID".
                                     2              ITA No. 7462/Mum/2014
                                                     Smt. Neeta Ashok Shah

     (iii)   Whether the Ld.CIT(A)s after taking cognizance of the
             fact that Mukesh Chokshi has on the date of Search &
             (subsequently also) stated that his statement that all the
             transactions carried out by his various companies are
             bogus and he only provides accommodation bills. Without
             prejudice, the Ld.CIT(A)s could have remanded the
             matter to AO to allow the Assessee to cross examine
             Mukesh Chokshi and called for further Remand.
     (iv)    Whether the Ld.CIT(A)s after taking cognizance of the
             fact in page 5 of his order that the sub-broker Alliance
             Intermediaries & Network Private Limited admitted during
             its own assessment that it was in the business of
             accommodation entry, was right in holding that the
             purchase of the shares by the assessee through this sub-
             broker was genuine. The Ld.CIT(A)s failed to remand the
             matter to the AO for cross examination of the assessee.
     (v)     Whether the Ld.CIT(A)s after observing that the AO erred
             in confirmation from BSE instead of NSE, was right in
             accepting claim of assessee without asking the O to
             obtain confirmation from NSE regarding transactions
             made through the sub-broker Alliance Intermediaries &
             Network Private Ltd. & Joinder Capital Services Ltd.
             whereas in the instant case, the assessee was informed of
             the reasons for reopening the case.
     (vi)    Whether the Ld.CIT(A)s was correct in ignoring the fact
             that the assessee never requested for cross-examination
             before the AO during the assessment proceedings and
             holding that that AO did not provide the opportunity to
     (vii) Whether the Ld.CIT(A)s after relying on the decisions of
           the Hon'ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Utara
           S.Shorawalla and others in IT No.55606/5507/Mum12009
           CO No. 107/Mum/2010 order 25.5.201 1 for A.Y 2001-02
           and 2002-03 was correct in not directing the AO to cross-
           examine and furnish the remand report.
     (viii) The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on
            the above grounds of unexplained Cash Credit of
            Rs.2,50,843/- and unexplained cash credit of Rs.13,140/-
            be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be

3.      None appeared on behalf of the assessee. I have heard the
learned D.R. and carefully perused the record.
                                     3             ITA No. 7462/Mum/2014
                                                    Smt. Neeta Ashok Shah

4.   Facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are stated in brief.
For the year under consideration assessee declared total income of
`1,06,682/- on 20.03.2009 which includes long term capital gain of
`13,140/-, which is claimed as exempt. Information was received by
the AO, during the course of statement given by Shri Mukesh Chokshi
on 16.01.2013, that he had provided accommodation entries to
several   people   including   the   assessee   herein.   Therefore   the
assessment was reopened by issuing notice under section 148 of the
Act and a notice under section 142(1) was issued along with a
questionnaire calling upon the assessee to furnish details of purchase
of shares and details of D-MAT Accounts, proof of payment made on
purchase, etc. Upon going through the information the AO had
concluded that assessee had taken bogus/accommodation entries and
the entire transaction is nothing but accommodation entries from
M/s. Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd. He therefore added a
sum of `2,50,843/- as unexplained cash credit.

5.   Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)
wherein it was contended that the statement of Shri Mukesh Chokshi
is general and assessee's name was not specifically mentioned and no
cross information has been provided. It was also contended that the
shares have been credited in D-MAT Account of the assessee. The
payment towards purchase of shares has been made by account
payee cheque. Shares have been sold through a reputed stock
broker. He has also furnished the entire evidence in respect of
purchase and sale of shares.

6.   Having regard to the submissions made before the first Appellate
Authority the learned CIT(A) perused the record and noticed that
during the year only 200 shares of MMTC was purchased whereas the
shares of IFCI and Jai Corporation were sold during the present year.
She further observed that mere statement of third party would not be
sufficient to doubt a transaction and the assessee should have been
                                   4              ITA No. 7462/Mum/2014
                                                   Smt. Neeta Ashok Shah

given an opportunity to confront the person by way of cross
examination whereas, in the instant case the assessee, has not been
given an opportunity. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the
ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Utara S. Shorawalla in ITA
No. 5506/5507/Mum/2009 dated 25.05.2011 wherein the Tribunal
observed that Shri Mukesh Chokshi`s report cannot be the sole basis
for making an addition. The learned CIT(A) further observed that in
the statement of Shri Mukesh Chokshi there is no reference to the
assessee as such. In fact the assessee produced brokers note; the
transaction has been entered into D-MAT account and the AO has not
found any reason to doubt the same. Under the circumstances the
addition made by the AO was set aside by the learned CIT(A).

7.    Aggrieved Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The case of
the learned D.R. is that the CIT(A) could have remanded the matter
to the AO to allow the assessee to cross examine Shri Mukesh
Chokshi or called for further report rather than setting aside the
disallowance and also contended that the assessee never produced
the   D-MAT   account    before   the   AO   during   the   assessment
proceedings. It was also submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in
admitting additional evidence, i.e. D-MAT Account, without giving the
AO an opportunity, in violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act.

8.    The appeal was posted for hearing on 02.09.2015 by sending
notice to the assessee by RPAD. Since the Bench did not function on
that day, the case was adjourned to 07.10.2015 by announcing the
date through notice board. However, none appeared on behalf of the
assessee. In fact no material was filed by the assessee to show that
copy of D-MAT account, etc. were filed before the AO. Since the plea
of the Revenue is that no opportunity was given to the AO while
admitting additional evidence, in the interest of substantial justice, I
am of the view that the matter deserves to be set aside to the file of
the CIT(A) who is to reconsider the matter in accordance with law
                                   5              ITA No. 7462/Mum/2014
                                                   Smt. Neeta Ashok Shah

after giving the AO the requisite opportunity of being heard in
consonance with Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. With these
observations the appeal filed by the Revenue is treated a allowed for
statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th October, 2015.

                                              (D. Manmohan)
                                               Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 12th October, 2015

Copy to:

   1.   The   Appellant
   2.   The   Respondent
   3.   The   CIT(A) ­ 35, Mumbai
   4.   The   CIT­ 25, Mumbai City
   5.   The   DR, "SMC" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
                                                     By Order

//True Copy//
                                               Assistant Registrar
                                       ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Organic SEO Outsourcing Organic Search Engine Optimization Outsourcing Organic Website SEO Organic SEO India Website SEO India Organic Search Engine Optimization India Organic Internet SEO India Organic Web

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions