Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Vivek Suresh Agrawal-Huf, Ahmedbad vs The Ito, Ward-3(3)(15), Ahmedabad on 29 March, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ, अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"A" BENCH, AHMEDABAD
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Stay Petition No.74/Ahd/2019
IN
ITA.No.70/Ahd/2019
नधा रण वष /Asstt.Year : 2015-16
Shri Vivek S. Agrawal-HUF ITO, Ward-4
21, Vivek Vila, Sarthi-III Vs Mehsana.
Nr. Goyal Intercity, Drive-in-Road
Thaltej,Ahmedabad 380 052.
PAN : AAFHV 1039 M
(Applicant) '(यथ*/ (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri A.C. Shah, AR
Revenue by : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
ु वाई क तार ख/ Date
सन of Hearing : 29/03/2019
घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement: 29/03/2019
आदे श/O RDER
PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Present Stay Petition is directed at the instance of the assessee for grant of ad-interim stay of outstanding demand amounting to Rs.17,45,680/-.
2. It emerges out from the record that the assessee has filed its return of income electronically on 9.12.2015 declaring total income at Rs.6,41,930/-. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that the assessee had purchased shares of Kailash Auto Finance for a sum of Rs.3.00 lakhs. These scrips were sold during the financial year 2014-15 for a consideration of Rs.51,62,206/-. Thus, long term capital gain of Rs.48,62,206/- has been SP No.74/Ahd/2019 2 shown and claimed as exempt. On an analysis of the record, the ld.AO doubted the transaction and treated it as a penny stock transaction. He made addition of total sale proceedings with aid of section 68. In this way, the demand of Rs.21,82,100/- has been raised against the assessee. Appeal to the ld.CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee.
3. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that the AO has misread and misconstrued the transaction and erroneously treated the transaction as penny stock transaction. Similarly, though the ld.CIT(A) has not specifically mentioned, but it was an ex parte order without considering the submissions of the assessee. On the other hand, the ld.DR pointed out that there cannot be any reason for return of Rs.48 lakhs on an investment of just Rs.3.00 lakhs in a short span of time, which itself suggests that transaction has been managed. Nevertheless, we are not supposed to go into this issue at this stage. Considering the facts and circumstances, we stay recovery of the outstanding demand subject to payment of Rs.6,50,000/- before 31.3.2019 in addition to the payment of Rs.4,36,420/- already made. The balance amount remains stayed for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever event occurs first. Registry is directed to list appeal of the assessee for out-of- turn hearing on 4th June, 2019. The assessee will not seek any adjournment except unavoidable circumstance, warrants so. The assessee shall file all necessary paper books before the next date of hearing.
4. In the result, stay petition of the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove.
Order pronounced in the Court on 29th March, 2019 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 29/03/2019