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: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: VAT Audit :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: form 3cd :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: cpt :: VAT RATES :: due date for vat payment
From the Courts »
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-7 Vs. Pavitra Commercial Ltd.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi Iv Vs. Gee Kay Finance & Leasing Co. Ltd.
 Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-6 Vs. Nokia Solutions & Network India Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As, Nokia Siemens Network Pvt Ltd)
 SKY Light Hospitality Llp Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -28(1), New Delhi
 Tax outgo may rise for investors in companies undergoing M&A cases
 Rajat B Mehta vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
 Seema Sabharwal vs. ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
  Vikram Singh vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Shree Gopal Housing & Plantation Corporation (Bombay High Court)
 Kudrat Sandhu vs. UOI (Supreme Court)
  Vikram Singh vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)

Viren P Vora (HUF), 1/42, Tardev A/c Market, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400034 Vs. Income Tax Officer 16(1)(4), Mumbai
September, 02nd 2015
        ,   "- " 


           ./I.T.A. No.3143 and 3144/Mum/2015
       (   / Assessment Years :2006-07 and 2007-08)

Viren P Vora (HUF),         / Income Tax Officer 16(1)(4),
1/42, Tardev A/c Market,    Vs.
Tardeo Road,
      ( /Appellant)         ..    ( / Respondent)

    ./   ./PAN/GIR No. :AAAHV2456G

           ./I.T.A. No.3217 and 3218/Mum/2015
       (   / Assessment Years :2007-08 and 2008-09)

Asha D Vora,                / Income Tax Officer 16(1)(4),
1/42, Tardev A/c Market,    Vs.
Tardeo Road,
      ( /Appellant)         ..    ( / Respondent)

    ./   ./PAN/GIR No. :AABPV8609B

           ./I.T.A. No.3219 and 3220/Mum/2015
      (   / Assessment Years : 2006-07 and 2007-08)

Payal B Vora,               / Income Tax Officer 16(1)(4),
1/42, Tardev A/c Market,    Vs.
Tardeo Road,
      ( /Appellant)         ..    ( / Respondent)

    ./   ./PAN/GIR No. :AABPJ5872C
                                             ITA No.,3143,3144,3217 ,3218,3219
                                                           a n d 3 2 2 0 / Mu m / 2 0 1 5

              / Appellants by            Shri Jitendra Singh
              /Rspondent by              Shri Mourya Pratap

           / Date of Hearing                   : 13.8.2015
           /Date of Pronouncement : 26.8.2015

                               / O R D E R
Per Bench:

      All the appeals filed by the respective assessees are directed against
the separate orders passed by the ld.CIT(A)-30, Mumbai in their respective
hands for the assessment years mentioned in the cause title. Since the
issues urged in all these appeals are identical in nature, they were heard
together and are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of

2.    All the assessees are contesting the following issues:
      a)     Validity of reopening of assessment;
      b)     Assessment of purchase value of shares by treating them
             as bogus purchases; and
      c)     Assessment of estimated expenditure relating to purchases.

3.    We have heard the parties and perused the record. The facts
relevant to the above said issues are that the department carried out
search and seizure operation in the hands of a person named as Shri
Mukesh Chokshi, who admitted that he and his group of companies were
engaged in the business of providing accommodation bills for purchase
and sale of shares in order to enable the persons to generate the
speculation profit /loss, Short Term Capital Gain and Long Term Capital
Gains etc. It was noticed that the assessees herein had also purchased
shares from the group companies belonging to Shri Mukesh Chokshi.
Hence, upon receipt of information in this regard, the AO re-opened the
assessment of all these assessees for the years under consideration. The
                                             ITA No.,3143,3144,3217 ,3218,3219
                                                           a n d 3 2 2 0 / Mu m / 2 0 1 5

AO treated the purchase value of the shares as bogus purchases and
assessed the same as income of the assessee. The AO also estimated the
expenditure that could have been incurred by the assessees for getting
accommodation bills at 2% of the purchase value and assessed the same
as unexplained expenditure. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals filed by
the assessees and hence they have filed these appeals before the

4.    The first issue relates to the validity of reopening of the assessment.
At the time of hearing, the ld. AR did not argue on this ground. Hence the
same is dismissed.

5.    The next issue relates to the assessment of purchase value of
shares as income of the assessee and also the addition relating to
estimated expenditure.     The ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee
submitted that assesses herein had sought for cross-examination of Shri
Mukesh Chokshi, since the AO framed the assessment on the strength of
the statement given by Shri Mukesh Chokshi.          He submitted that these
assessees were not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine Shri Mukesh
Chokshi. Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that the AO should not have
made the additions by violating the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly he prayed that the assessees should be provided with
adequate opportunity to cross-examine Shri Mukesh Chokshi. The Ld A.R
submitted that the same would help the assessees to support share

6.    The ld. DR did not object to the plea put forth by the ld. AR.

7.    Having regard to the rival submissions, we are of the view that the
AO was not justified in not affording the opportunity of cross examination
to the assessees herein and the said action of the AO violates the
principles of natural justice.   Further, as submitted by the Ld A.R, the
                                             ITA No.,3143,3144,3217 ,3218,3219
                                                           a n d 3 2 2 0 / Mu m / 2 0 1 5

assessing officer has made the impugned additions only on the basis of
statement given by Shri Mukesh Choksi. Accordingly, we are of the view
that the assessees herein should be provided with adequate opportunity to
cross-examine Shri Mukesh Chokashi. Accordingly, we set aside the order
of ld. CIT(A) in respect of both the additions referred above and restore
them to the file of the AO with a direction to examine these issues afresh
after affording adequate opportunity to the assessees to cross-examine
Shri Mukesh Choksi and also after considering any other information and
explanations that may be furnished by these assessees.

8.      In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessees are treated as
allowed for statistical purposes.

       Pronounced accordingly in the open Court on 26th August 2015.
                                         26th August, 2015    

             Sd                                                  sd

  (LALIT KUMAR)                                       ( B.R. BASKARAN)
 JUDICIAL MEMBER                                   ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
 Mumbai: 26th Aug, 2015.

.../ SRL , Sr. PS

    /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.  / The Appellant
2.    / The Respondent.
3.    () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4.     / CIT concerned
5.    ,   ,  /
     DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6.     / Guard file.

                                                              / BY ORDER,
True copy

                                                       (Asstt. Registrar)
                                           ,  /ITAT, Mumbai
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Content Management System developers CMS developers Content Management Solutions CMS Solutions CMS India Content Management System India CMS development India Website CMS Website Content Management India Portal CMS India CMS Outsourcing CMS Vendor Complete CMS Custom CMS Services

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