Smt. Premlata Jalan, Kolkata v. ACIT, Circle - 32, Kolkata

ITA 663/KOL/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 66323514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ACXPJ5234D
Bench Kolkata
Appeal Number ITA 663/KOL/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Premlata Jalan, Kolkata
Respondent ACIT, Circle - 32, Kolkata
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 11-03-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 27-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEN CH C KOLKATA () BEFORE . .. . . .. . SHRI B.R.MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . #$ SHRI C.D.RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % % % % / ITA NO . 663/KOL/2009 &' ()/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 (+ / APPELLANT ) SMT. PREMLATA JALAN KOLKATA (PAN : ACXPJ 5234 D) - & - - VERSUS - . (./+ / RESPONDENT ) A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-32 KOLKATA + 0 1 #/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SUBHAS AGARWAL ./+ 0 1 #/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI PIYUSH KOLHE SR.DR #2 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . ) )) ) #$ PER SHRI C.D.RAO AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 30.01.2009 OF THE CIT(A)-XIX KOLKATA PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 004-05. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AS MANY AS MANY G ROUNDS RELATING TO TWO ISSUES WHERE THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.5 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS AND THE OTHER IS RS.37 49 400/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF T HE SHARES. 3 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO WH ILE DOING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT THE AO HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE HA S CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED TWO GIFTS BY WAS OF CHEQUES AGGREGATING TO RS.5 00 000/-. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ONE GIFT OF RS.2 50 000/- IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEER. RE CEIVED FROM SMT. RANJANA TULSHIAN OF 41A. ISWAR GANGULY STREET KOLKATA-26. TOWARDS CONFIRMATION OF 2 THE GIFTS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DECLARATION OF GIFT SIGNED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC KOLKATA. A PERUSAL OF THE DECLARATION IT A PPEARS THAT THE GIFT WAS MADE BY CHEQUE NO.031513 DATED 29-09-2003 IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE DRAWN ON UNION BANK OF INDIA S. B. ROAD KOLKATA. IN ORDER TO PROVE THE DETAILS OF MOVEMENT OF MONEY THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND GENUI NENESS OF THE GIFT SHRI MIHIR BANERJEE AN INSPECTOR OF INCOME-TAX ATTACHED TO THIS OFFICE WAS DEPUTED ON 01-09-2006 TO OBTAIN THE BANK ACCOUNT DETAILS OF THE DONOR FROM THE BANK. THE INSPECTOR HAS ACCORDINGLY OBTAINED THE COPY OF FT E ACCOUNT OPENING FORM AND A STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR. ON VER IFICATION OF THE ACCOUNT OPENING FORM IT IS FOUND THAT SMT. RANJANA TUISHIA N (THE ALLEGED DONOR) IS A STUDENT AND THE ACCOUNT BEARING NO. SB 1093 WAS OPE NED ON 20-03-2003 DEPOSITING RS. 1 000/- AS AN OPENING BALANCE. THERE AFTER A SERIES OF HIGH VALUE TRANSACTIONS OF DEPOSITS & WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN CA RRIED OUT THROUGH THIS ACCOUNT. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE IMPUGNED S UM OF RS.2 50 000/- WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE SAID ACCOUNT ON 14-10-2003 AND ON THE SAME SAY IT WAS WITHDRAWN BY CHEQUE NO.031513. ON THE CHEQUE DATE O F 29-09-2003 THE ALLEGED DONOR HAD ONLY RS. 1 112/- AS AVAILABLE BAL ANCE IN HER ACCOUNT. READING OF THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2003-04 REVEALS TH AT THE SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS AGGREGATING TO RS.23 34 008/- COMPRISE OF VARIOUS H IGH VALUE DEBIT-CREDIT ENTRIES ON THE SAME DATES WHICH ONLY INDICATE THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS USED BY MANY UNSCRUPULOUS PERSONS AS A CHANNEL FOR MONEY LAUNDERING ACTIVITIES. AFTER ANALYZING THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FR OM 01-07- 2003 TO 30- 11-2003 IT IS CLEAR THAT IMPUGNED TRANSACTION OF RS .2 50 000/- SHOWN AS GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO TH E FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE DONOR SMT.RANJANA TULSHIAN AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY DEPOSITED AND WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DATE I.E. O 14.10.2003 TO G IVE IT A COLOUR OF GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE FACTS ESTABLISH THAT THE IMPUGN ED TRANSACTIONS SHOWN TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE GIFT ARE NOT GENUINE AND MORESOEVER THE DONOR HAS NO CAPACITY TO MAKE A GIFT TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 50 000/-. ANOTHER GIFT OF RS.2 50 000/- IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SMT.BANDANA TULSHIAN OF 41A ISWAR GANGULY STREET KOLKATA-26. TOWARDS CONFIRMATION OF THE GIFTS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DECLARATION OF GIFT SIGNED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC KOLKATA A PERUSAL OF THE DECLARA TION IT APPEARS THAT THE GIFT WAS MADE BY CHEQUE NO.031494 DATED 29-09-2003 IN TH E NAME OF THE ASSESSEE DRAWN ON UNION BANK OF INDIA S.B.RD. KOLKATA. IN ORDER TO PROVE THE DETAILS OF MOVEMENT OF MONEY THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND GE NUINENESS OF THE GIFT SHRI MIHIR BANERJEE AN INSPECTOR OF INCOME-TAX ATTA CHED TO THIS OFFICE WAS DEPUTED ON 01-09-2006 TO OBTAIN THE BANK ACCOUNT DE TAILS OF THE DONOR FROM THE BANK. THE INSPECTOR HAS ACCORDINGLY OBTAINED THE CO PY OF THE ACCOUNT OPENING FORM AND A STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE DONOR. O N VERIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNT OPENING FORM IT IS FOUND THAT SMT. BANDANA TULSHIAN (THE ALLEGED DONOR) IS A HOUSE-WIFE AND THE ACCOUNT BEARING NO.S B 1092 WAS OPENED ON 20-03-2003 DEPOSITING RS. 1000/- AS AN OPENING BALA NCE. THEREAFTER A SERIES OF HIGH VALUE TRANSACTIONS OF DEPOSITS & WITHDRAWALS H AVE BEEN CARRIED OUT THROUGH THIS ACCOUNT. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT T HE IMPUGNED SUM OF 3 RS.2 50 000/- WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE SAID ACCOUNT ON 14-10-2003 AND ON THE SAME SAY IT WAS WITHDRAWN BY CHEQUE NO.031494. ON T HE CHEQUE DATE OF 29- 09-2003 THE ALLEGED DONOR HAD ONLY RS.1 362/- AS A VAILABLE BALANCE IN HER ACCOUNT. READING OF THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR 2 003-04 REVEALS THAT THE SERIES OF TRANSACTIONS AGGREGATING TO RS. 16 47 535 /- COMPRISE OF VARIOUS HIGH VALUE DEBIT-CREDIT ENTRIES ON THE SAME DATES WHICH ONLY INDICATE THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS USED BY MANY UNSCRUPULOUS PERSONS AS A CHANNEL FOR MONEY LAUNDERING ACTIVITIES. AFTER ANALYZING THE BANK FOR THE PERIOD 01.07.2003 TO 30.11.2003 IT IS CLEAR THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIO N RS.2 50 000/- SHOWN AS GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTE D TO THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THE DONOR SMT.BANDANA TULSHIAN AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY DEPOSITED AND WITHDRAWN ON THE SAME DATE IE. ON 14-10-2003 T O GIVE IT A COLOUR OF GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. ALL THESE FACTS ESTABLISH THAT THE IM PUGNED TRANSACTION SHOWN TO HAVE CONSTITUTED THE GIFT ARE NOT GENUINE AND MORES OEVER THE DONOR HAS NO CAPACITY TO MAKE A GIFT TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 50 000/ -. IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE IMPUGNED GIFTS THE FACTS AR E IDENTICAL LEADING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TWO ALLEGED DONORS HAVE NO CAPACITY TO MAKE GIFTS AND THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE AT ALL. THE CASH W AS INTRODUCED INTO THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS AND SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN BY CHEQUES ON THE VERY SAME DAY TO REACH THE HAND OF THE ASSSSEE IN THE GU ISE OF GIFTS. FURTHER THE ALLEGED DONORS ARE NEITHER RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSE E NOR HAVE BEEN PROVED TO BE SO BY THE ASSESSEE AND THUS IT APPEARS TO BE VERY V ERY IMPRACTICABLE PROPOSITION THAT THE TWO UNRELATED WOMEN ONE BEING STUDENT AND THE OTHER BEING HOUSE- WIFE WOULD MAKE GIFT OF SUCH HIGH VALUE TO THE ASS ESSEE. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT BOTH SMT RANJANA TULSHIAN AND SMT. BANDANA TULSHIA N WERE SERVED WITH SUMMONS U/S.131 ON 04-09.2006 FOR THEIR PERSONAL AT TENDANCE ON 08-09-2006 BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED FOR EXAMINATION UNDER THE PR OVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE ASESSEE WAS ALSO INTIMATED BY THIS OFFICE LETTER DA TED 05-09-2006 TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINING THE PARTIES AT THE S AID DATE AND TIME. BUT NEITHER THE TWO PARTIES NOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARED ON THE AP POINTED DATE. THOUGH THE DICE IS ALREADY LOADED AGAINST THE ASSES SEE THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER NO.AC IT/CIR-32/HEARING/06-07/418 DATED 01-11- 2006 TO SHOW CAUSE ON OR BEFORE 07-11- 2006 WHY THE AFORESAID TWO SUM AGGREGATING TO RS.5 00 000/- SHOULD NOT TRE ATED AS CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. BU THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER OFFERED ANY REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOR COMMUNICATED ANY REASONS FOR HER INABILITY TO MAKE A REPLY TILL DATE. SO THE MATTER IS NOW DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE FAC TS ON RECORD. 3.1. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- (6) I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPEL LANT AND PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR SHE HAS RECEIVED GIFT TOTALING TO RS .5 00 000/- FROM TWO DONORS NAMED SMT. RANJANA TULSHIAN AND SNIT. BANDANA TULSH IAN RS.2 50 000/- EACH. ON PERUSAL OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IT WAS OBSERVED THAT SMT. 4 RANJANA TULSHIAN HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM KNITTING AN D STICHING WORK SHARE DEALING PROFIT AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHIL E SMT. BANDANA TULSHIAN HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM RAKHI MAKING CHARGES SALE O F RAKHI RAW MATERIALS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE NET INCOME OF S MT. RANJANA FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WAS RS.77 950/- AND THAT OF SMT. BANDANA WA S 78 950/-. THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THESE TWO ALLEGED DONORS SHOW THAT SMT. RANJANA HAS MADE GIFT OF RS.3 00 000/- WHICH INCLUDE GIFT OF RDS.2 50 000/-. TO THE APPELLANT AND SMT. BANDANA HAS MADE GIFT OF RS.2 50 000/-. THE RETURNS OF ALLEGED TWO DONORS ARE THE IDEAL EXAMPLES OF CAPITAL BUILDING CASES. AS DI SCUSSED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE WERE NUMBER OF ENTRIES IN THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THESE SO-CALLED DONORS WHERE HIGH VALUE CHEQUES WE RE ISSUED AND JUST PRIOR TO THOSE CHEQUES THE AMOUNT WERE TRANSFERRED IN THE A CCOUNT OF THESE LADIES FROM SOME OTHER ACCOUNT. THIS PUT A BIG QUESTION MARK ON THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. ON PERUSAL OF GIFT DECLARATION AND THE COPIES OF THEIR RETURN OF INCOME IT IS ALS O OBSERVED THAT SIGNATURES ON THE GIFT DECLARATION AND THE RETURN OF INCOME ARE D IFFERENT IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE DONORS. IT APPEARS THAT ON BOTH THE GIFT DECLARATIO NS SAME PERSON HAS PUT THE SIGNATURES WHERE THE SPELLING OF SURNAME HAS BEEN M ENTIONED AS TULSHIAN. SIMILARLY ON BOTH THE RETURN OF INCOME SIGNATURE HAS BEEN MADE BY ONE PERSON AND THE SURNAME HAS BEEN WRITTEN AS TULSIAN. THUS THE EXISTENCE OF THESE DONORS IS ALSO DOUBTFUL. AS STATED BY THE A.O. IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AS THE BANK ACCOUNT OPENING FORMS ONE DONOR HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS STUDENT AND OTHER AS HOUSE-WIFE. DURING THE COURSE OF APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE AR OF THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE RELATIONS HIP BETWEEN THE DONORS AND DONEE AND THEIR AGE ETC. BUT THE AR WAS NOT ABLE TO STATE ANYTHING ABOUT IT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO TH E APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFECT TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DON ORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY THE A.O. WAS NOT AVAILED BY HER. 6.1. THE FILING OF GIFT DECLARATIONS AND THAT THE GIFTS WERE RECEIVED BY CHEQUE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS. ON THE CONTRARY THE RETURN OF INCOME AND SOURCES OF INCOME OF THE ALLEG ED DONORS SHOW THAT THEY WERE NOT HAVING CREDITWORTHINESS TO GIVE GIFTS OF S UCH A BIG AMOUNTS. THE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER SPEAKING THAT NEITHER THE DONORS WERE HAVING CREDITWORTHINESS NOR THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE. IN TODAYS MATERIALISTIC WORLD NO ONE IS H AVING SO MUCH LOVE AND AFFECTION TOWARDS OTHERS THAT HE/SHE WILL MAKE GIF TS OF SUCH HUGE AMOUNT WHEN HE/SHE WAS NOT HAVING THE REGULAR AND PROPER SOURC ES OF INCOME FOR HIMSELF/HERSELF. ON PERUSAL OF CAPITAL ACCOUNTS IT IS OBSERVED THAT SMT. RANJANA HAS SHOWN ANNUAL WITHDRAWAL OF RS.56 250/- AND SMT. BANDANA HAS SHOWN WITHDRAWAL OF RS.54 260/- ONLY. IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT THE PERSONS WHO ARE HAVING SUCH A LITT1E AMOUNT OF WITHDRAWALS FOR THEM SELVES WOULD GIVE DONATION OF SUCH A BIG AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT. (6.2) UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES LAM OF THE OPINION THAT THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE DONORS WERE NOT HAVING THE C REDITWORTHINESS AND THE TRANSACTION OF ALLEGED GIFTS WERE NOT GENUINE I AM NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH 5 THE STAND TAKEN BY THE A.O. THE ADDITION OF RS.5 00 000 MADE BY THE A.O. IS CONFIRMED THE GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 3.2. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING IN RESPECT OF THE GIFTS :- (I) THE AO HAS ADDED THE GIFTS OF RS.5 00 000/- U/ S 68 IN SPITE OF SUBMITTING ALL THE EVIDENCES I.E. COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF THE DONORS GIFT DECLARATIONS COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS AND THE COPIES OF PAN ALL OTMENT LETTERS. (II) THE DONOR SMT. RANJANA TUISHIANS AND SMT. BAN DANA TULSHIANS BANK ACCOUNT THE GIFTS OF RS.2 50 000/- EACH BY WAY OF C HEQUES. (III) THE DONORS RESIDES AT 41A ISHWAR GANGULY STR EET KOLKATA-26. (IV) THE WORKING OF THE DONORS BANK ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE MADE A TOOL FOR DETERMINATION OF THE LEGALITY OF THE GIFTS. THE DON ORS HAVE GIVEN THE GIFTS OUT OF THEIR OWN CAPITAL AS THERE WAS NO OUTSTANDING LOAN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET. (V) THE COPIES OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE-SHEET CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE DONORS HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MAKE GIFTS. (VI) THE DONORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX. THUS THE IDEN TITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 OF THE IT ACT DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4.1. IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSIONS HE FILED THE DOC UMENTS FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE RE VENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. AS THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ROUTED THROUGH DEMAT ACCOUNT AND B ANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AU THORITIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. AS REGARDING THE OTHER ISSUE IN RESPECT OF ADDIT ION OF RS.37 49 480/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT BEING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFER ED A SUM OF RS.35 16 240/- TO TAX ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE SOLD 49 000 SHARES OF M/S. SHARDARAJ TRADING LTD. FOR RS.37 49 480/- THROUGH THE BROKER M/S.BASANT PERIWA L & CO. AFTER HOLDING THE SHARES FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING TWELVE MONTHS FROM TH E DATE OF PURCHASE FOR WHICH THE TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE WAS RS.2 33 240/-. D URING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THE BROKERS CONTRACT NOTES FOR PURCHA SE AND SALE OF SHARES WERE FILED ON 21-08-2006. AS PER THE CONTRACT NOTE FOR P URCHASE 49 000 SHARES OF M/S. SHARDARAJ TRADING LTD. WERE ALL PURCHASED ON 28- 08- 2002 THROUGH TRADE NOS.1365 TO 1374 IN THE ON-LINE TRADING SYSTEM OF THE CALCUTTA STOCK 6 EXCHANGE AS PER THE CONTRACT NOTE FOR SALE ALL THE ABOVE REFERRED 49 000 SHARES WERE SOLD ON 28-11-2003 THROUGH TRADE NOS. 3501 35 02 3508 TO 3511 IN THE ON-LINE TRADING SYSTEM OF THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHAN GE. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT IONS OF THE AFORESAID SHARES TWO NOTICES BOTH DATED 04-09-2006 U/S. 133(6) WERE ISSUED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. ALONG WITH THE COP IES OF THE CONTRACT NOTES FLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN A LETTER BEARING NO.CSE/M SD/ATAO DATED 18.- 09.2OO6 SENT A REPLY AS UNDER:.. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LETTER REF.NO.ACIT/CIR-32/KOL /S.133(6)/06-07/222 DATED 04-09-2006. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS OF THE EXCHANGE THAT M/ S. MUKHESH DOHANIA & CO. (BUSINESS CODE:850) HAD EXECUTED TRANSACTION IN THE SCRIP SHARDARAJ TRADEFIN LTD. ON 28-08-2002 VIDE TRADE NOS. STARTING FROM 1 363 TO 1374 FOR THE CLIENT CODE CLIENT @RS.4.75 IN THE ON-LINE TRADING SYSTE M OF THE EXCHANGE. FROM THE TRADE DETAILS AVAILABLE WITH EXCHANGE NO D ETAILS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THIS EXCHANGE FOR CLIENT CODE CLIENT AND WE ARE U NABLE TO GIVE ANY FURTHER DETAILS IN THIS REGARD. IN ANOTHER LETTER BEARING NO.CSE/MSD/ITAX/0906/1848 DATED 18-09-2006 THE SECRETARY SENT A REPLY AS UNDER :- PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LETTER REF. NO.ACIT/CIR-32/KOL /S. 133(6)/06-07/222 DATED 04-09-2006. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS OF THE EXCHANGE THAT M. /S. BASANT PERIWAL & CO. HAD EXECUTED TWO CROSS DEALS ON 28-11-2003 WITH TRA DE NOS. 3501 & 3502 IN THE SCRIP SHARADARAJ TRADEFIN LTD. FOR THE CLIENT E4 (FOR BUY) AND A4 (FOR SALE) IN THE ON-LINE TRADING SYSTEM OF THE EXCHANGE . NAME OF THE CLIENTS INVOLVED IN THIS TRANSACTION IS AS FOLLOWS :- CODE NO.OF THE CLIENT NAME OF THE CLIENT A4 ARIHANT ENTERPRISES LTD. E4 SUBHREKHA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. THE ABOVE TWO LETTERS FROM THE SECRETARY OF CALCUTT A STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. ARE VERY MUCH SELF-EXPLANATORY. IT MAY BE INFERRED FROM THE FIRST LETTER THAT PURCHASE OF THE SAID 49 000 SHARES WERE EXECUTED BY THE BROKER M/S. MUKHESH DOKANIA & CO. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AS FAR AS THE IMPUGNED SALE OF THE SHARES ARE CONCERNED IT IS AMPLY CLEAR FROM REPLY FURNISHED BY THE SECRETARY BASED ON THE RECORDS OF THE EXCHANGE THAT ON DT.13. 11.2003 THE NROKER M/S. BASANT PERIWAL & CO. HAD NOT EXECUTED ANY TRANSACTI ONS OF SALE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY BE NOTED HERE THAT WHENEVER ANY TR ANSACTION IS CARRIED OUT THROUGH THE EXCHANGE IN THE ON-LINE TRADING SYSTEM WHETHER IN DEMAT OR IN PHYSICAL FORM A TRADE NO. IS UNIQUELY GENERATED TH ROUGH THE COMPUTER OF THE EXCHANGE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD THE SH ARES THROUGH TRADE NOS.3501 3502 3508 TO 3511 IT IS FOUND FROM THE R ECORDS OF THE EXCHANGE THAT TRADE NOS. 3501 & 3502 ARE NOT IN THE NAME OF THE A SSESSEE AND TRADE NOS. 3508 TO 3511 ARE NON-EXISTENT IN THE RECORDS OF THE EXCHANGE. THIS CLEARLY 7 PROVES THAT THERE DID NOT TAKE PLACE ANY SALE OF AS SESSEES SHARES THROUGH THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE ON 28.11.2003. IT IS ALSO N OT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE RESORTED TO OFF-MARKET SALE OF TH E ALLEGED 49 000 SHARES ON 28.11.2003. HENCE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF SALE OF T HE ALLEGED SHARES FOR RS.37 49 480/- IS NOT CORRECT AND THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM SHARES IS TOTALLY BOGUS. ENUMERATING THE AFORESAID DISCREPANCIES AN OFFICE LETTER BEARING NO.ACIT/CIR-32/HEARING/06-07/418 DATED 01-11-2006 W AS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING TO SHOW CAUSE ON OR BEFORE 07-11-20 06 WHY THE SUM OF RS.37 49 480/- CREDITED IN THE BOOKS AS THE SALE PR OCEEDS OF THE ALLEGED 49 000 SHARES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS CASH CREDIT. BUT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FILED ANY REPLY NOR COMMUNICATED ANY REASONS FOR HER INAB ILITY TO OFFER A REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE TILL DATE. SO THE MATTER IS NOW DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE AVAILABLE FACTS ON RECORD. BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS HAVE BEEN DRAWN:- (I) A SUM OF RS.37 49 480/- IS FOUND CREDITED AS SALE P ROCEEDS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04; (II) THE CLAIM OF SALE IS FOUND TO BE FALSE BASED ON INF ORMATION FORM THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. (III) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SALE THE COMPUTATION OF CAPI TAL GAINS IS NOT TENABLE AND THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE RET URN OF INCOME IS ENTIRELY BOGUS (IV) THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENES S OF CLAIM OF THE IMPUGNED SALE AND THEREBY HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE H ER ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS; AND (V) THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE ENTIR E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT FREE FROM CONTUMACY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER IT IS NOW HELD THAT THE SUM OF RS.37 49 480/- HAVING BEEN CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT T HE SALE PROCEEDS OF ANY SHARES AND IS THUS ASSESSABLE AS CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEES OFFER OF RS.35 16 240/- TO TAX AS LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAINS IS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE ENTIRE CASH CREDIT OF RS.37 49 480 /- IS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FURTHER BY RESORTING TO CASH C REDIT AS AFORESAID THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND/OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HENCE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 TO THIS SECTION ARE BEING INITIATED S EPARATELY. 6.1. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLA NT AND PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS FILED. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS PURCHASED 49 000 SHARES OF M/S.SHARARAJ TRADEFIN LTD. FROM THE BROKE R MUKESH DOKANIA & CO. ON PERUSAL OF DEMAT ACCOUNT IT WAS OBSERVED THAT 2 8 100 SHARES WERE CREDITED IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT ON 29-08-2002 AND BALANCE SHAR ES WERE CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT ON 21-09-2002. THE SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF 8 MUKESH DOMANIA & CO. ON ENQUIRY FROM THE CALCUTTA S TOCK EXCHANGE IT WAS GATHERED THAT THE BROKER MUKESH DOHANIA & CO. HAS EXECUTED CROSS DEALS IN THE SAID SCRIP FOR THE CLIENT CODE CLIENT. BOTH T HE TRANSACTIONS OF BUY AND SELL WERE DONE BY THE BROKER FOR THE SAME CLIENT CODE WH OSE DETAILS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE EXCHANGE. 9.1. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE ALLEGED 49 000 SHARES WERE SOLD ON 28-11-2003 @RS.76.60/- PER SHARE THROUGH THE BROKER M/S. BASANT PERIWAL & CO. AS PER CONTRACT NOTE THE TRADE NOS. WERE 3501 3502 AND 3508 TO 3511. SIMILARLY THE TRADE TIME MENTIONED WAS 15:45:47 15: 46:00 AND 15:46:06 TO 15:46:09. HOWEVER ON PERUSAL OF DEMAT ACCOUNT IT I S OBSERVED THAT THE ALLEGED SHARES WERE DEBITED IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT ON 11-12-2 003 I.E. AFTER 13-14 DAYS OF ALLEGED TRANSACTION WHICH IS NOT AS PER THE NORMAL PRACTICE IN THE STOCK MARKET. THE DEMAT ACCOUNT ALSO SHOWS THAT ALL THE 49 000 SH ARES WERE TRANSFERRED IN THE A/C OF THE BROKER M/S. BASANT PERIWAL & CO. WHILE AS PER THE MARKET PRACTICE IF THE TRANSACTIONS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE ON-LINE SY STEM OF THE STOCK EXCHANGE THE DELIVERY OF THE SHARES IS GIVEN TO THE STOCK EX CHANGE WHO IN TERM DELIVER THE SHARES TO THE ULTIMATE BUYER OF THE SHARES. AS STATED ABOVE IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OF APPELLANT THE SHARES WERE DEBITED ON 11 -12-2003 WHILE AS PER CONTRACT NOTE ISSUED BY THE BROKER THE SETTLEMENT P ERIOD HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS 28-11-203 TO 28-11-03 I.E. THE SAME DATE ON WHICH THE ALLEGED SHARES WERE CLAIMED TO BE SOLD. ON BEING ENQUIRED FROM THE STOC K EXCHANGE IT WAS GATHERED BY THE AO THAT THE BROKER BASANT PERIWAL & CO. HAS EXECUTED TWO CROSS DEALS ON 28-11-2003 WITH TRADE NOS. 3501 & 35 02 IN THE SCRIP OF SHARDARAJ TRADEFIN LTD. FOR CLIENT E4 (FOR BUY) A ND A4 (FOR SALE) IN THE ON- LINE TRADING SYSTEM OF EXCHANGE. IT WAS INFORMED BY THE EXCHANGE THAT THE CLIENT FOR WHOM SHARES WERE SOLD WAS M/S. ARIHANT ENTERPRISES LTD. AND THE CLIENT FOR WHOM SHARES WERE BOUGHT WAS M/S. SUBHRE KHA VYAPAR PVT. LTD. THERE WAS NO EXISTENCE OF TRADE NOS.3508 TO 3511. T HIS SHOWS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. ON BEING SHOW CAUSED BY THE AO THE APPELLANT HAS PREFERRED TO KEEP SILENCE AND NO EXPLANATION WA S SUBMITTED BY HER. 9.2. IT IS AN OPEN SECRET THAT DURING THE FINANCIA L YEAR 2001-02 TO 2003-04 A NUMBER OF ASSESSES HAD ENTERED INTO THE DUBIOUS TRA NSACTIONS OF PENNY STOCKS IN CONNIVANCE WITH SOME OF THE SHARE BROKER AND THE CO MPANIES. THIS WAS DONE TO CLAIM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF ALLEGED SHA RES. AS STATED EARLIER THE AO HAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BUT NO EFFORTS WERE MADE BY THE APPELL ANT. THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST UPON THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCHARGE D BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CANNOT ABSOLVE HIMSELF FROM HIS ONUS BY S IMPLY SAYING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DONE THROUGH THE BROKERS AND THE PAYMENT/RECEIPT WAS BY WAY OF CHEQUE. THIS WILL NOT MAKE A NON-GENUINE TRA NSACTION A GENUINE TRANSACTION UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND CIRCUMSTANT IAL EVIDENCES THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF PU RCHASE AND SALE OF ALLEGED SHARES WERE NOT MAN MOHAN SADANI VS CIT 304 ITR 52 (MP) AND CIT VS ANUPAM KAPOOR 212 CTR 49 (P&H) ARE NOT RELEVANT ON THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS MISERABLE FAILED T O PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF 9 TRANSACTIONS EVEN THOUGH THE DOCUMENTS WERE CREATE D TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS. THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMAT DAYAL VS CIT REPORTED IN 214 I TR 801 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRO VE THAT THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS DID NOT REPRESENT THE INCOME. IN VIEW OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR THE SAME MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF IS IN THE OPINION OF THE AO NO T SATISFACTORY. IN SUCH CASE THERE IS PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIZ THE RECEIPT OF MONEY AND IF HE FAILS TO REBUT THE SAME THE SAID EVIDENC E BEING UNREBUTTED CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM BY HOLDING THAT IT IS A RECEIPT OF AN I NCOME NATURE. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF A SU M OF MONEY FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE IS ON HIM. WHERE THE N ATURE AND SOURCE OF A RECEIPT WHETHER IT BE A MONEY OR OTHER PROPERTY C ANNOT BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IT IS OPEN TO THE REVENU E TO HOLD THAT IT IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO FURTHER BURDEN LIES ON THE R EVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME IS FROM ANY PARTICULAR SOURCE ROHAND D HAT TI VS CIT [1977] 107 ITR 938 (SC)/KALE KHAN MOHAMMAD HANIF VS CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC). IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE PRIMA FAC IE THE TRANSACTION WHICH RESULTS IN A CASH CREDIT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SUCH PROOF INCLUDE PROOF OF THE IDENTITY OF HIS CREDITOR THE CAPACITY OF SUCH CRED ITOR AND LASTLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ADD UCED EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE THE AFORESAID THE ONUS SHIFTS ON THE D EPARTMENT SHANKAR INDUSTRIES VS CIT 114 ITR 689 (CAL.) 9.3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION IT I S HELD THAT THE APPELLANT AS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF ALLEGED SHARES OF SHARDARAJ TRADEFIN LTD. THE AO WA S JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.37 49 480/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. TH E ADDITION SO MADE IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND NOS. 2 3 AND 4 ARE DISMISSED . 6.2. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- (I) THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED 49 000 SHARES OF M/S.SH ARDARAJ TRADING LTD. ON 28-08-2002 THROUGH THE BROKER MUKESH DONANIA & CO. UNDER THE TRADE NOS. 1365 TO 1374 ON ON-LINE SYSTEM OF THE EXCHANGE . (II) THE SHARES WERE RECEIVED IN DEMAT ACCOUNT. (III) THE SHARE WERE IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT FOR MORE TH AN 12 MONTHS. (IV) THE SAID 49 000 SHARES WERE SOLD ON 28.11.2003 THRO UGH M/S. BASAN PERIWAL AND CO. UNDER THE TRADE NOS. 3501 3502 AND 3508 TO 3511 ON ON- 10 LINE SYSTEM OF THE EXCHANGE. THE SAID SALES OF SHAR ES WAS ROUTED THROUGH DEMAT ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK. (V) THE APPELLANT HAS FULL FAITH IN BROKERS. (VI) THE APPELLANT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE WORKING O F THE SHARE BROKERS. THE APPELLANT IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH PURCHASE AND S ALE OF SHARES AND ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE SHARE BROKERS. (VII) THE SHARE BROKERS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE TRANS ACTIONS ARE DONE THROUGH CHEQUES. (VIII) RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF MANMOHAN SADANI VS CIT 304 ITR 52 (MP) AND CIT VS ANUPAM KAPOOR 213 C TR 49 (P&H). 7.1. IN SUPPORT OF THE SUBMISSIONS HE FILED THE DOCUME NTS FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE RE VENUE IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. AS THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ROUTED THROUGH DEMAT ACCOUNT AND B ANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AU THORITIES AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 9. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CARE FUL PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT AS REGARDI NG THE GIFTS ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET SMT. BANDANA TULSHIYAN WHICH WAS PLACED AT PA GE T-65 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS ON 31.3.2004 IS SHOWN AS 10 09 3 60/- WHEREAS AT PAGE T66 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS ON 31.3.2003 TO 3 1.3.2004 HAS BEEN SHOWN AS OPENING BALANCE AT RS.12 59 360/-. OUT OF THIS SHE HAS GIFTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 50 000/-. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE NET INC OME FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2004 IS ONLY RS.78 950/- AND THE DRAWINGS ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL EXPENSES IS RS.54 260/-. 9.1. SIMILARLY ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF SMT. RANJANA TULSHIAN WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE T57 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE OPENING BA LANCE CARRIED FORWARD AS SHOWN AT RS.11 09 797/- AND AGAIN AT PAGE T58 THE CAPITAL AC COUNT AS ON 1.4.2003 TO 31.3.2004 AS SHOWN AS OPENING BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD AT RS.1 4 09 797/- AND THE GIFTS GIVEN AT RS.3 00 000/-. IN THIS CASE ALSO THERE IS NO DISPUT E THAT NET PROFIT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2004 IS ONLY RS.77 950/- AND THE TOTAL DRAWIN GS FOR PERSONAL EXPENSES IS 11 RS.56 250/-. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINANCIAL POSITION AND APPLYING THE HUMAN PROBABILITY THEORY WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN DISBELIEVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS AS WELL AS THE GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 9.2. REGARDING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IT IS OB SERVED THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THE SHARES ARE PURCHASED ON 28.08.2002 BUT HOWEVER HE HAS NOT FILED ANY BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2003 SHOWING THAT THE SAID SHARES OF M/S. SHARADARAJ TRADING LTD. ARE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2003. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE THOUGH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US HE COULD NOT REBUT THE O BSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO/CIT(A). BUT HOWEVER THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THA T THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WERE ENTERED INTO THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SALE PROCEEDS ARE RECORDED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CI RCUMSTANCES WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE VIEW OF THE REVENUE THAT THE PURCHASE AN D SALE OF SHARES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE TREATED AS BOGUS. THEREFORE IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER MAKING FURTHER ENQUIRIES AS PER LAW AND GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT WHY THE TRANSACTIONS ARE RECORDED IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT OTHER THAN THE DA TE OF PURCHASE/SALE AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PREVAILING RATES AS ON THE DAT E OF PURCHASE/SALE IN ORDER TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11.03.2011. SD/- SD/- . .. . . .. . B.R.MITTAL JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . #$ #$ #$ #$ C.D.RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ('$ '$ '$ '$) )) ) DATE: 11.03.2011. R.G.(.P.S.) 12 #2 0 .3 4#3(5- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT.PREMLATA JALAN 26 SHAKESPEARE SARANI KOLKATA -7000017. 2 THE A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-32 KOLKATA 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL-XIX KOLKATA 5. DR KOLKATA BENCHES KOLKATA /3 ./ TRUE COPY #2&:/ BY ORDER DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT KOLKATA BENCHES