, Û "",
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCHES "SMC", MUMBAI
^ .. , Û ¢
Before Shri I P Bansal, Judicial Member
./ITA No.5214/Mum/2014
( [ [ / Assessment Year:2004-05)
Atulkumar Amritlal Sanghavi Vs. The ITO 16(2)(2),
(HUF), Mumbai
1607 B, Sankar Sheth
Palace, Tardeo Road,
Grant Road,
Mumbai 400 007
PAN AAAHS4876A
( /Appellant) (× / Respondent)
Appellant by : Ms. Vinita Shah
Respondent by : Mr. Neil Philip
Date of Hearing : 27.11.2014 Date of Pronouncement :27.11.2014
/ O R D E R
This appeal is filed by the assessee. It is directed against the order passed by
the CIT(A) 27, dated 05.05.2014, for A.Y. 2004-05. The grounds of appeal read
as under:
"1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law,
the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned
Assessing Officer in reopening the case, without considering the
provision of law.
2. On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the
Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned
Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.2,20,140/- as alleged
Undisclosed Income on account of sale consideration of sale of 4600
share of M/s. Talent Infoways Ltd., without considering the facts &
circumstances of the case."
2
ITA No.5214/Mum/2014
AY:2004-05
2. At the time of hearing, the learned AR did not press ground No.1. Therefore,
the same is dismissed being not pressed.
3. As per information received by the AO from DDI (Investigation), the assessee
was beneficiary of alleged bogus bills of transactions from M/s. Goldstar Finvest Pvt.
Ltd. Accordingly, the case was reopened and sale value of the shares of M/s. Talent
Infoways Ltd. amounting to Rs.2,20,2140/- was added to the income of the
assessee. The disallowance has been upheld by the learned CIT(A). It may be
mentioned here that it has been the case of the assessee that sale of shares did not
take place in the relevant financial year as the sale took place on 20.05.2004.
Therefore, the transaction of sale of shares cannot be considered as income in the
present year. Neither the purchase was done during the year nor has the sale been
affected during the year. It is also a matter of fact that the same amount has been
added by the Department in AY 2005-06 as it can been seen from the assessment
order dated 23.01.2013 for A.Y. 2005-06. Copy of the said order is placed at pages
32 to 36 of the paper-book. Thus, it is the case of the assessee that the learned
CIT(A) has wrongly upheld the addition. The date of sale of shares is supported by
documentary evidence, copy of which are also filed at pages 24 to 26 of the paper-
book.
4. On the above facts, I have heard both the parties. Since, neither the
purchase nor the sale has been made by the assessee during the year under
consideration, the addition in the year under consideration cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the same is deleted and ground no.2 is allowed.
5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of November, 2014.
Sd/-
(I P Bansal)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
MUMBAI, Dt : 27th November, 2014
SA
3
ITA No.5214/Mum/2014
AY:2004-05
Copy forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The C.I.T, concerned
4. The CIT (A)-concerned
5. The DR, "SMC" Bench, Mumbai
BY ORDER
//True Copy//
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai
|
