Case Law Details
The Pr. CIT (Central) Vs. Sh. Hitesh Gandhi (Punjab and Haryana High Court)
Assessing Officer was not able to contradict the facts regarding purchase of shares and sale thereof. Further, it was recorded that the assessee had sold shares through MTL shares and Stock Broker limited which is a SEBI registered Stock Broker. The payment for sale of shares was received through banking channels. All the documentary evidence being in favor of assessee, the deletion of the addition made by the CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:-
“We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that the assessee had purchased shares in the month of April/May, 2006 as noted by the learned CIT(A) in his order at page-4. The shares were purchased in Assessment year 2006-07. Further the shaes were got dematerialized and the same were created in the account of assessee maintained with HDFC bank. The assessee also received dividend on such shares on 23.10.2007 and such dividend was claimed as exempt and Assessing Officer did not raise any objection against the claim of such dividend. The learned CIT(A) has noted in his order that in the remand report Assessing Officer was not able to contradict any of the facts regarding purchase of shares and regarding sale of shares. It is further observed that assessee had paid STT on the sale of such shares and this fact has been noted by learned CIT(A) in his order. Further, we find that while making out the addition on account of capital gain the Assessing Officer himself gave credit to assessee for indexed cost of acquisition to the extent of Rs. 11,67,821/- taking the purchase price at Rs. 11,00,000/-. Further, we find that assessee had sold shares through MTL shaes and Stock Brokers Limited as is noted by Assessing Officer in reply to question No.24 which is a SEBI registered Stock Broker. Furthermore the payment for sale of shares was received through Banking channels. All these documentary evidences in favor of the assessee were rejected by Assessing Offiver merely on the basis of some casual replies given by assessee to the Assessing Officer. However, the fact remains that all the documentary evidences are in favor of assessee and learned CIT(A) has passed a very reasoned and speaking order and we do not find any infirmity in the same.”
The findings recorded by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal are pure findings of fact which have not been shown to be illegal, erroneous or perverse by the learned counsel for the appellant. He has also not been able to produce any material on record to controvert the said findings. Thus, no substantial question of law arises.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT JUDGMENT / ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
The date of order is 16 February 2017, how come it is latest?