COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. SUDEEP GOENKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Rakesh Ranjan Agrawal assisted by Sri Suyash Agarwal for the respondent. This appeal has been filed, under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench 'A', Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 22.05.2009, passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 208/Luc/09 by which the appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed and the order of Commissioner Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur, allowing the appeal of the assessee, has been upheld. The appellant has proposed the following substantial question of law, said to be involved in the appeal:-

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as follows:

(3.) The Assessing Officer by order dated 28.12.2006 held that the assessee avoided to appear in person before him, in spite of notice issued for his personal appearance and from the fact that the shares were sold for more than 30 times of the purchase price within a period of one year proved that it was a bogus transaction. Accordingly sale price of the shares of Rs. 42,34,350/- was treated as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The assessee preferred an appeal from the aforesaid order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Kanpur who by his order dated 19.01.2009 held that the assessee had filed purchase bills of the shares, letter of transfer dated 20.04.2002, sale bills, accounts of Modern Holding Pvt. Ltd., account of Vikas Holding Pvt. Ltd., purchase and sale chart and copy of quotation of various letters from Stock Exchange showing the rate of shares of M/s. Supreme Agro Product Ltd. at the relevant times, letters dated 16.10.2006, 28.11.2006, 19.12.2006 and 22.12.2006 from Vikas Holding Pvt. Ltd., the broker, confirming the sale of the shares and on an independent inquiry ICICI Bank informed that payment of the sale price of the shares was made through bank draft. From the documentary evidence produced by the assessee it was proved that transaction of sale and purchase of the shares were actual transactions and not a fictitious accommodation entries. He further found that the Assessing Officer has not assigned any reason for disbelieving the mass of documentary evidence produced by the assessee and based his findings on surmises that price rise of the value of the shares in short span of time was highly excessive. On these findings the appeal was allowed and the addition was deleted. The Revenue, feeling aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 22.05.2009 dismissed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals).