Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Addl Cit Rg 21(1), Mumbai vs Assessee on 24 July, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "H" MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI, B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010
Assessment Year 2006-07
Income Tax Officer - Mrs. Rasila N Gada,
16(2)(4), B-22, Station Terrace Bldg,
Matru Mandir, Slater Road,
Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400 036.
Mumbai - 400 007. PAN: AABPG 2971 P
ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010
Assessment Year 2006-07
Income Tax Officer - Mr. Harakchand K. Gada
16(2)(4), (HUF),
Matru Mandir, A/3, Terrace Bldg,
Tardeo Road, Vs. Forjet Hill Road,Tardeo,
Mumbai - 400 007. Mumbai.
PAN: AABHH 5079 M
ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010
Assessment Year 2006-07
Income Tax Officer - Mr. Harakchand K. Gada,
16(2)(4), A/3, Terrace Bldg,
Matru Mandir, Forjet Hill Road,Tardeo,
Tardeo Road, Vs. Mumbai - 400 036.
Mumbai - 400 007. PAN: AAFPG 0299 N
ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010
Assessment Year 2006-07
Income Tax Officer - Mrs. Kesar A. Gada,
16(2)(4), A/3, Terrace Bldg,
Matru Mandir, Forjet Hill Road,
Tardeo Road, Vs. Tardeo,
Mumbai - 400 007. Mumbai - 400 036.
PAN: AABPG 0029 L
ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010
Assessment Year 2006-07
Income Tax Officer - Mrs. Leela B. Gada,
16(2)(4), A/3, Terrace Bldg,
Matru Mandir, Forjet Hill Road,
Tardeo Road, Vs. Tardeo,
Mumbai - 400 007. Mumbai - 400 036.
PAN: AFOPG 0182 Q
ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010
2 ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010
ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010
ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010
ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010
ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010
ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009
ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009
ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010
Assessment Year 2006-07
Income Tax Officer - Mrs. Kasturben H. Gada,
16(2)(4), A/3, Terrace Bldg,
Matru Mandir, Forjet Hill Road,
Tardeo Road, Vs. Tardeo,
Mumbai - 400 007. Mumbai - 400 036.
PAN: AABPG 0030 B
ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009
Assessment Year 2006-07
Income Tax Officer - Wd. Smt. Lipika Nikesh Gada,
21(1)(2), A-11, Sardar Patel Society,
6th Floor, Room No. 604, Opp. Petrol Pump,
Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Vile Parle (East),
Bandra - Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400 057.
Bandra (E), PAN: AGQPG 8359 F
Mumbai - 400 051.
ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009
Assessment Year 2006-07
Income Tax Officer - Mrs. Minaxi Ramesh Gada,
21(1)(3), 6, Mangal Prabha,
C-10, 6th Floor, Gujarati Mandal Road,
R.No. 605, Vs. Vile Parle (East),
Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400 057.
BKC, Bandra (E), PAN: AABPG 2972 Q
Mumbai - 400 051.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Revenue by : Miss C. Tripura Sundari
Assessee by : Dr. K. Shivaram,
Shri Ajay R. Singh
Date of hearing : 24-07-2012
Date of pronouncement : 08-08-2012
ORDER
PER RAJENDRA, A.M.
The following are the Grounds of Appeal filed by the Assessing Officer (AO) .
Grounds of Appeal:
ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the deletion of addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 23,68,748/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as income from undisclosed sources on account of sale of shares.ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010 3 ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010 ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009 ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009
"2. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the following facts and that:-
(a) The shares were held in the pool account of the brokers, as per instructions of the assessee to the broker and the share were transferred to the assessee few days prior to the sale date. However, the BSE has denied, the said transactions of the shares on which exemption u/s. 10(38) was claimed, between 22-09-2005 to 07-12-2005, through the involved brokers.
(b) That the shares were kept in the pool account till the payment was received by the broker, as per practice of the stock market, thus the assessee do not become owner of the shares as the shares were not transferred to assessee's DEMAT account.
(c) That date of purchase and sale of the shares, and the date of the shares became dematerialized is not clear.
(d) Failed to appreciate that no STT was paid on the sale of share on which capital gain was declared and was claimed exempt u/s. 10(38).
(e) Ignored the fact that neither any balance sheet was filed along with return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 nor there was any mention of share holding in the return.
(f) Has further erred in relying the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the cases of Shri Mukesh R. Morolia Vs. ACIT, where as the facts of the case is not exactly the same as that of the assessee. Further, the facts and circumstances of the case, is similar to that of Shri Pinakin L. Shah and that the decision of the Tribunal in the said case has not been accepted by the department and that the issue is sub-judice".ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the deletion of addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 21,82, 494/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as income from undisclosed sources on account of sale of shares.ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the deletion of addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 23,63,387/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as income from undisclosed sources on account of sale of shares.ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the deletion of addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 23,49,575/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as income from undisclosed sources on account of sale of shares.ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010 4 ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010 ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009 ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the deletion of addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 23,64,232/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as income from undisclosed sources on account of sale of shares.ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010
"1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the deletion of addition made by the A.O. of Rs. 62,69,761/- u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, as income from undisclosed sources on account of sale of shares.ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,67,550/- as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. By not appreciating the finding of the Assessing Officer proving the entire share transaction to be a sham.
"2. The Ld. CIT(A) while proving relief has not appreciated the following:
i) The assessee did not have any proof of having paid for the shares and that the shares were lying in the demat account of the broker and was only transferred to the assessee's account a few days before the sale transaction date.
ii) There is an evidence on record, where the director of the company through whom the alleged transaction was effected have committed to having given accommodation entries to the assessee.
iii) In the case law relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) i.e., Popatlal Nandu & Others (ITAT No. 1718/M/2006 to 1718/M/2006), the purchase of shares was not in doubt as in the instant case where the assessee could not prove the purchase of the shares.ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009
"1. (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,28,205/- as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act by not appreciating the finding of the Assessing Officer proving the entire share transaction to be a sham.
(ii) The Ld. CIT(A) while providing relief has not appreciated the following facts:ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010 5 ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010 ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009 ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009
a) Assessee did not submit any evidence regarding purchase of shares, her demat account and the proof of payment in respect of purchase of shares.
b) The shares were lying in the broker's demat account and were transferred to the assessee's account just days before the sale.
c) The assessee has transacted in only 1 scrip of 1,25,000 shares of Maruti Infrastructure in the entire year.
d) There is evidence on record, that the Director of the company through whom the alleged transaction were affected has committed to having given accommodation entries to the assessee.
e) BSE & NSE has confirmed that the Brokers viz Alliance Intermediaries & Networks (P) Ltd., & Mahasagar Securities (P) Ltd., were not registered on their Stock Exchange. Even the registration of Alliance Intermediaries & Networks (P) Ltd., with ISE Security Services Ltd. Was cancelled on 19-02-2004 i.e., much before the purchase and sale of the shares of Maruti Infrastructure.
f) The scrip of Maruti Infrastructure was not listed on NSE.
g) Assessee was not registered as a client of any trading member of BSE/NSE and did not have 'Unique Client Code' which is mandatory.
h) Assessee has not made the share transaction on a recognized Stock Exchange which has been made mandatory for all share transactions after October 2004.
i) In the case law relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) in Popatlal Nandu Others (ITAT No. 1718/M/2006 to 1723/M/2006) the purchase of shares was not in doubt as in the instant case where the assessee could not prove the purchase of the shares.
"2. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)'s erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,28,205/- merely on the grounds that the assessee's name has not been specifically listed out as beneficiary in respect of the accommodation bills related to share transactions provided by shri Mukesh Chokshi before the ADIT Inv. In doing so, the CIT(A)' has not appreciated the following facts:-
1) Shri Mukesh Chokshi in his statement dated 7/8/06 has mentioned members of "Gada Family" as the beneficiaries.
2) Further, the Ld. CIT(A) himself has admitted in his appellate order dated 13/5/09 that 'the assessee's' case falls in the realm of suspicion on the basis of enquiries conducted by the Investigation Wing. The overall conduct of the appellant definitely leads to suspicion cash might have been paid to the broker from which the cheque towards long term capital gain has been received after manipulating the price of the pennny stock involved".
3) The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010 6 ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010 ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009 ITA No. 4792/Mum/20092. These eight appeals, filed by the Assessing Officer (AO), are against the order of the CsIT(A), Mumbai. Since the facts and issues are common (except the number of shares sold of three companies and the dates of orders by the CsIT (A) and their designations) so, the appeals are heard together and are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience appeal in the case of Rasila N. Gada (ITA. No. 1773 /M/10) is being considered in detail.
3. Assessee, an individual, filed her original return of income on 21.09.2006 declaring income of Rs.82,331/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income- tax Act,1961(Act). The assessee had not shown any income under the head capital gains at the time of filing the original return. A survey action u/s.133 of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee group on 23.01.2007 by the Department. During the course of survey, the assessee group was informed by the departmental officers that the claim made by the members of the group of long-term capital gains in their returns of income was not genuine since the broker, Sh. Mukesh Choksi, through whom shares were sold, had not paid Securities-Transaction-Tax (STT).The assessee filed a revised return on 11.5.2007, which included long-term capital gains (LTCG) on sale of shares.
3.1. The assessee had claimed that the during the assessment year under consideration she had sold 1,25,000 shares of Maruti Infra Ltd. that were purchased by her in 2004. The AO in his assessment order held that LTCG earned by the assessee was not genuine since the broker had not paid STT, that the shares sold by the assessee were sold in off market i.e. sales were not sold through regular stock exchanges. He further held that in the original return of income there was no mention of those shares,that there was a search action in the case of director of Mahasagar Securities. Pvt. Ltd and Alliance Intermediaries & Network Pvt. Ltd, Mukesh Chokasi, that Sh. Chokasi had confirmed under oath that he had given accommodation entries various parties, that the assessee had stated that the shares were held in the pool account of the broker, that shares purchased in 2004 were continued to be held by the broker's pool account for a period more than one year, that same were transferred to her demat-account of the only a few days prior to selling them, that the assessee had not filed proper details with regard to sale and purchase of shares. He disallowed assessee's claim of capital gains amounting to Rs.23, 68,748/- and added the same as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act. He also mentioned that he had written a letter to the stock exchange in respect of sale of shares submitted by the assessee and the Bombay stock exchange had confirmed the non-existence of the broker, as well as the assessee and her family members who had claimed to have sold the shares.
4. Assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA)-CIT (A)-27, Mumbai. After considering the submissions made by the assessee and the assessment order FAA held, vide his order dtd.24.12.2009,that assessee had purchased the shares at the market rate for which a confirmation from the Bombay stock exchange was received by the AO containing total transactions of shares of Maruti infra, that the payment of sale consideration was received by the assessee through banking channels, that she had also filed the balance-sheet of previous year in which the investment in shares had been shown in the preceding year, that Sh. Choksi ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010 7 ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010 ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009 ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009 had never mentioned the name of the assessee in his statement, that assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine Sh.Choksi, that the AO had not made an enquiry to prove that the alleged transactions were not genuine, that the only reason for making addition was that the shares were held jointly in the account of the broker- even though payment had been made, that the assessee had furnished details of purchases, broker's notes of sales and purchase, details of payment received from broker through banking channels and copy of her demat account, that all details of sale/ purchase of shares were available in the case under consideration, that the AO had himself had verified the sale/purchase of the assessee and had not challenged the purchase of shares, that he could not hold the sale to be non-genuine. Following the orders of the Tribunal in the cases of Mukesh R. Marolia FAA is deleted the addition is made u/s.68 of the Act by the AO.
5. Before us, Department of representative (DR) submitted that assessee had not claimed long-term capital gains in the original return, that it was only after the survey action the assessee filed her revised return, that there was no verification of purchase and sales of the shares from Bombay stock exchange, that the transfer of shares to the account of the assessee was only before 4-5 days of sale of the said shares, that shares were lying in the pool account of the broker for a long period, that off-market purchase/sale of shares was unaccounted. Authorised representative (AR) submitted that once the assessee came to know about non payment of STT on long-term capital gains she filed her return of income on her own, that she had partly taxable and partly exempt income for the AY under consideration, that in the return of income filed for the earlier assessment year investments in shares had been shown in the balance- sheet. He referred to the demat accounts of Mahasagar Securities of earlier year (page number 12of Paper Book) balance sheet of the preceding assessment year (page 8 of Paper Book) demat accounts of the assessee (page 17 of paper book) details obtained by the AO from the Bombay stock exchange (page 42 of the Paper Book). He relied upon the cases of Mukesh R. Marolia (6SOT247-Mumbai, and ITA No.456 of 2007 dtd.7.9.2011 Bombay High Court), Shri Popatlal Bachubahi Nandu (ITA No . 1718 /M/2006 - AY 2002-03, dtd.17.10.2008), Chandrakant Babulal Shah (No.6108/M/2009-AY.2002-03, dtd.17.12.2010), Sharada Credit Pvt. Ltd (ITA No.3415/ M/2007, AY 2001-02, dtd. 09.02.2009).
5.1. After perusing the material available we are of the opinion that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sharada Credit and Mukesh R Marolia has upheld the orders of the ITAT, Mumbai. In those cases it has been held that shares purchased/sold in the off market cannot be considered illegal transactions. We find that the AO had not afforded opportunity of cross-examination of Shri Mukesh Choksi to the assessee. It is noteworthy that Sh. Choksi had not named the assessee in his statements as the beneficiary who had availed bogus entries. We have noticed that the assessee had shown the investment in shares in the balance- sheet of the earlier assessment year and her return of income was accepted by the Department. We are of the opinion that once sales/purchase of shares is accompanied by this kind of evidences the genuineness of the said transactions cannot be doubted. Non-payment of STT cannot be and should not be basis for making addition of the section 68 of the Act. FAA has categorically held that all the necessary details about ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010 8 ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010 ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009 ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009 purchase and sale of shares were made available to the AO during assessment proceedings. We have perused the case laws relied upon by the AR. In the case of Mukesh R Marolia (supra) Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court has held as under:
" ....On further Appeal, the ITAT by the impugned order allowed the claim of the Assessee by recording that the purchase of shares during the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were duly recorded in the books maintained by the Assessee. The ITAT has recorded a finding that the source of funds for acquisition of the shares was the agricultural income which was duly offered and assessed to tax in those Assessment Years. The Assessee has produced certificates from the aforesaid four companies to the effect that the shares were in-fact transferred to the name of the Assessee. In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the Assessee had purchased shares out of the funds duly disclosed by the Assessee cannot be faulted.
Similarly, the sale of the said shares for Rs.1,41,08,484/- through two Brokers namely, M/s Richmond Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Scorpio Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. cannot be disputed, because the fact that the Assessee has received the said amount is not in dispute. It is neither the case of the Revenue that the shares in question are still lying with the Assessee nor it is the case of the Revenue that the amounts received by the Assessee on sale of the shares is more than what is declared by the Assessee. Though there is some discrepancy in the statement of the Director of M/s. Richmand Securities Pvt. Ltd. regarding the sale transaction, the Tribunal relying on the statement of the employee of M/s. Richmand Securities Pvt. Ltd. held that the sale transaction was genuine.
In these circumstances, the decision of the ITAT in holding that the purchase and sale of shares are genuine and therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 1,41,08,484/- represented unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be faulted."
We are of the opinion that the facts of the case of Mukesh R Marolia are similar to the facts of the cases under consideration. Respectfully following the orders of the Hon'ble High Court and the coordinating benches of the Tribunal we hold that purchase and sale of shares by the assessee was a genuine transaction, and hence, addition made by the AO cannot be endorsed.
Upholding the orders of the FAA ,we dismiss the appeals filed by the AO.
ITA.No.1772/M/10 Mr. Harakchand K. Gada (HUF) Assessee had sold 80,000 shares of Sacheta Metals during the year under consideration. Original return was filed on 21-09-2006 declaring total income of Rs.1,33,932/-. In the revised return, assessee offered LTCG for Rs. 19,81,749/- for taxation under the head LTCG where STT was not paid. Addition amounting to Rs.21,82,494/- u/s. 68 of the Act was made by the AO. CIT(A)-27, Mumbai, the FAA, vide his order dt. 24-12-2009 deleted the said addition.
As the facts and circumstance of the case under consideration are similar to the case of Rasila Gada (supra), so, following the order passed in her case (ITA ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010 9 ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010 ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009 ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009 No1773/M/10) we dismiss the appeal filed by the AO and uphold the order of the FAA.
ITA.No.1774/M/10 Mr. Harakchand K. Gada Assessee had sold 1,25,000 shares of Maruti Infra during the year under consideration. Original return was filed on 27-09-2006 declaring total income of Rs. 3,83,835/-. In the revised return assessee offered LTCG for Rs. 3,56,961/- for taxation under the head LTCG where STT was not paid. Addition amounting to Rs. 23,63,387/- u/s. 68 of the Act was made by the AO. CIT(A)-27, Mumbai, the FAA, vide his order dt. 24-12-2009 deleted the said addition.
As the facts and circumstance of the case under consideration are similar to the case of Rasila Gada (supra), so, following the order passed in her case (ITA No1773/M/10)we dismiss the appeal filed by the AO and uphold the order of the FAA.
ITA.No.1775/M/10 Mrs. Kesar A. Gada Assessee had sold 1,25,000 shares of Maruti Infra during the year under consideration. Original return was filed on 21-09-2006 declaring total income of Rs. 2,70,485/-. In the revised return assessee offered LTCG for Rs. 3,56,378/- for taxation under the head LTCG where STT was not paid. Addition amounting to Rs.23,49,575/- u/s. 68 of the Act was made by the AO. CIT(A)-27,Mumbai, the FAA, vide his order dt. 24-12-2009 deleted the said addition.
As the facts and circumstance of the case under consideration are similar to the case of Rasila Gada (supra), so, following the order passed in her case (ITA No1773/M/10)we dismiss the appeal filed by the AO and uphold the order of the FAA.
ITA.No.1788/M/10 Mrs. Leela B. Gada Assessee had sold 1,25,000 shares of Maruti Infra during the year under consideration. Original return was filed on 21-09-2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1,60,391/-. In the revised return assessee offered LTCG for Rs. 3,56,961/- for taxation under the head LTCG where STT was not paid. Addition amounting to Rs. 23,64,232/- u/s. 68 of the Act was made by the AO. CIT(A)-27, Mumbai, the FAA, vide his order dt. 24-12-2009 deleted the said addition.
As the facts and circumstance of the case under consideration are similar to the case of Rasila Gada (supra), so, following the order passed in her case (ITA No1773/M/10)we dismiss the appeal filed by the AO and uphold the order of the FAA.
ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010 10 ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010 ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009 ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009ITA.No.1789/M/10 Mrs. Kasturben H. Gada Assessee had sold 24,300 shares of Micro Techno and 7,000 shares of Sacheta Metals during the year under consideration. Original return was filed on 21-09-2006 declaring total income of Rs. 1,66,138/-. In the revised return assessee offered LTCG for Rs. 60,52,492/- for taxation under the head LTCG where STT was not paid. Addition amounting to Rs. 62,69,761/- u/s. 68 of the Act was made by the AO. CIT(A)-27,Mumbai, the FAA, vide his order dt. 24-12-2009 deleted the said addition.
As the facts and circumstance of the case under consideration are similar to the case of Rasila Gada (supra), so, following the order passed in her case (ITA No1773/M/10)we dismiss the appeal filed by the AO and uphold the order of the FAA.
ITA.No.4460/M/09-Lipika N Gada Assessee had purchased 1,25,000 shares of Maruti Infra during the year under consideration. Original return was filed on 21.09.2006 declaring total income of Rs.1,58,165/-. In the revised return assessee offered LTCG for Rs. 3,56,177/-for taxation under the head LTCG where STT was not paid. Addition amounting to Rs. 22,91,356/- u/s. 68 of the Act was made by the AO.CIT(A)-XXI-21,Mumbai,the FAA, vide his order dtd.13.05.2009 deleted the said addition.
As the facts and circumstance of the case under consideration are similar to the case of Rasila Gada (supra), so, following the order passed in her case (ITA No.1773 /M /10). We dismiss the appeal filed by the AO and uphold the order of the FAA.
ITA.No. 4792/M/09 -Minaxi Ramesh Gada Assessee had purchased /sold 1,25,000 shares of Maruti Infra during the year under consideration. Original return was filed on 21.09.2006.declaring total income of Rs.1,78,141/-. In the revised return assessee offered LTCG for Rs.3,55,711/-. for taxation under the head LTCG where STT was not paid. Addition amounting to Rs.23,28,205/- u/s. 68 of the Act was made by the AO.CIT(A)-XXI, Mumbai, the FAA, vide his order dtd.13.05.2009 deleted the said addition.
As the facts and circumstance of the case under consideration are similar to the case of Rasila Gada (supra), so, following the order passed in her case (ITA No. 1773/ M/ 10). We dismiss the appeal filed by the AO and uphold the order of the FAA.
ITA No. 1772/Mum/2010 11 ITA No. 1773/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1774/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1775/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1788/Mum/2010 ITA No. 1789/Mum/2010 ITA No. 4460/Mum/2009 ITA No. 4792/Mum/2009Appeals filed by the AO stand dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 8th August, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(B.R. MITTAL) (RAJENDRA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai,
Date 8th August, 2012
TNMM
Copy to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. The concerned CIT (A)
4. The concerned CIT
5. DR "H" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File
(True copy)
By Order
Asst. Registrar,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai Benches, Mumbai