Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Ms. Amita Bansal Vs CIT & Another (Allahabad High Court)
Appeal Number : Income Tax Appeal No.- 326 of 2010
Date of Judgement/Order : 30/03/2017
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

HC held that Tribunal – the higher appellate authority has neither considered and weighed, in entirety, the evidence relied by the lower appellate authority nor it has dealt with the reasoning and findings of the lower appellate authority while passing the order of reversal. It is then difficult for this court to the uphold as correct the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to reconsider the issue of genuineness of the transaction of purchase of shares as claimed by the assessee. 

Full Text of the High Court Judgment is as follows :-

This income tax appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench dated 26.02.2010 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The appeal was admitted on the following questions of law:-

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct to hold that 11,000 shares of M/s Welcome Coir Industries Ltd. Purchased by the appellant on 10.11.2003 from broker M/s Elbee Portfolio Pvt. Ltd vide contract Note dated 10.11.2003 and received in the Dem-at account and thereafter sold vide Contract Note dated 26.2.2005 of the broker M/s D.N. Kansal Securities Pvt. Ltd. And sale proceeds of share credited in the bank account of the appellant, still it was rightly held that shares sold were not the same shares purchased in November, 2003?

2. Whether the ITAT rightly treated the sale price of 11,000 shares, as income from undisclosed sources and added to the income of the appellant u/s 68 of the Act on the ground that the appellant could not filed any cogent evidence why the shares purchased in November, 2003, the payment was made in February, 2004 and credited in Demat Account in November, 2004 ignoring the contract note dated 10.11.2003, sale bill dated 17.11.2003 of purchases and sale of shares by Contract Note dated 26.2.2005?

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031