Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Jainam Investments (ITAT MUMBAI)
Under this issue the revenue has challenged the deletion of disallowance of Rs.4,71,19,785/- on of sale shares of M/s. Mahavir Advanced Remedies. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the disallowance of Rs.4,71,19,785/-, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, is liable to be set aside.
On appraisal, we noticed that the CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Classic Growers Ltd. Vs. CIT (ITA. No. 129 of 2012 (Calcutta), and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs. CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250, CIT Vs. Emerald Commercial Ltd. (2002) 120 taxman 282 (Calcutta) and in the case of Dhaeshwari Cotton Mills Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 and in the case of CIT Vs. Anirudh Narayan Agrawal (2013) 38 taxmann.com 367 (All) and various decision of the Hon’ble Courts mentioned above. Moreover, no law contrary to the law relied by the CIT(A) has been produced before us. There is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to hold this fact that the business loss in the impugned scrip is bogus. It is also not apparent on record that the appellants name was appearing in any of the SEBI investigation in the impugned scrip. No evidence on record to which it can be assumed that the appellant had connived with any entry operator for executing the share transaction. What adverse information was received from the wing of Calcutta/investigation wing Mumbai against the assessee is not apparent on record. The evidence adduced by the assessee was not rebutted by the AO. AO also took the contradictory stand by taxing the profit on the penny stock but disallowed the loss. No proper opportunity was given to the assessee to cross-examination of the witness as well as to rebut the other evidence on record. Taking into account of all the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
The above mentioned appeals have been filed by the revenue against the different order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Ys.2011-12 & 2016-17.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
