Vilina Suresh Jain, CHENNAI v. ITO Non Corporate Ward 18(5), CHENNAI

ITA 2570/CHNY/2018 | 2013-2014
Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 257021714 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AHTPJ4647C
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 2570/CHNY/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Vilina Suresh Jain, CHENNAI
Respondent ITO Non Corporate Ward 18(5), CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 20-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 07-01-2019
First Hearing Date 07-01-2019
Assessment Year 2013-2014
Appeal Filed On 04-09-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI . . . . ! # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2570/CHNY/2018 & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 MS. VILINA SURESH JAIN NO.5D SHATRUNJAY APARTMENTS 42/57 VEPERY HIGH ROAD VEPERY CHENNAI - 600 007. PAN : AHTPJ 4647 C V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON CORPORATE WARD - 18(5) CHENNAI. ()*/ APPELLANT) (+ )*/ RESPONDENT) )* - . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. ANAND ADVOCATE + )* - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN JCIT / - 0# / DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.2019 12' - 0# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.11.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -15 CHENN AI DATED 28.05.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 3 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEA L BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A PETITION FOR CO NDONATION OF 2 I.T.A. NO.2570/CHNY/18 DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE AND THE LD. D.R. WE FIND THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR N OT FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE STIPULATED TIME. THEREFORE WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 3. SHRI D. ANAND THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 1 0(38) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') IN RESPEC T OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING OUT OF SALE OF SHARES TO THE EXTENT OF 11 37 600/-. IN FACT ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN SHARES OF M/S BLUE CIRCLE SERVICES LTD. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAINLY PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE INVESTIGATION REPORT OF DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION KOLKATA. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL A COPY OF T HE SAID INVESTIGATION REPORT WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE ASSES SEE. THEREFORE THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY B E GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY REMITTING BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 I.T.A. NO.2570/CHNY/18 4. ON THE CONTRARY SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS P LACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS T HE CIT(APPEALS). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE SHARES OF M/S BLUE CIRCLE S ERVICES LTD. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD 16 000 SHARES OF M/S BLUE CIRCLE SERV ICES LTD. AND ON SALE OF THESE SHARES THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO THE EXTENT OF 11 37 600/-. THIS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE COMPANY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IS A PENNY STOCK COMPANY. HOWEVE R IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD HOW THE ASSESSEE IS INVOLVED IN P ROMOTING THE PENNY STOCK COMPANY AND HOW THE ASSESSEE INVOLVED I N INFLATING THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY. MOREOVER THE COPY OF T HE INVESTIGATION REPORT SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION W ING OF THE DEPARTMENT AT KOLKATA WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE ASSE SSEE. ON IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KANHAIYALAL & SONS (HUF) V. ITO IN I.T.A. NO.1849/CHNY/2018 HAS REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. IN 4 I.T.A. NO.2570/CHNY/18 FACT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AT PARA 4 OF ITS O RDER DATED 06.02.2019 AS FOLLOWS:- 4. WE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION SAID TO B E RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT AT KOLKATA WITH REGARD TO INVESTMENT MAD E BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE PENNY STOCK COMPANY. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT A COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM KOLKATA WAS NOT FURNISHED TO TH E ASSESSEE. MOREOVER DETAILS OF THE ENQUIRIES SAID TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE ALSO NOT FURNISH ED TO THE ASSESSEES. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THIS TRI BUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER FURNISHING THE MATERIAL RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL BRING ON RECORD THE ROLE OF THE ASSES SEES IN PROMOTING THE COMPANY AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF TH E ASSESSEES IF ANY WITH THE PROMOTERS ROLE OF THE ASSESSEES IN INFLATING THE PRICE OF SHARES ETC. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ALSO FURNISH A COPY OF THE INVESTIGATION REPORT SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT AT KOLKATA AND OTHER MATERIALS IF ANYTHING IN HIS POSSESSION AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES. 5 I.T.A. NO.2570/CHNY/18 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL EXA MINE THE MATTER AS DIRECTED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KANHAIY ALAL & SONS (HUF) (SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH NOVEMBER 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI 4 /DATED THE 20 TH NOVEMBER 2019. KRI. 6 I.T.A. NO.2570/CHNY/18 - +056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )*/ APPELLANT 2. + )*/ RESPONDENT 3. / 80 () /CIT(A)-15 CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 6 CHENNAI 5. 69 +0 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.