Soni Sonu Mirchandani, New Delhi Vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA.No.1286/Del./2020
 Assessment Year 2009-2010 

Smt. Soni Sonu
Mirchandani, F-166,
Malcha Marg,
New Delhi – 110 021.
PAN AAQPM7786H
(Appellant) 

Vs.
The ACIT,
Central Circle-5,
New Delhi.
(Respondent)

For Assessee :Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate,
Shri Rohit Jain, Advocatee,
Ms. Deepashree Rao, C.A. And
Shri Vibhu Gupta, C.A.

For Revenue : Shri Shyam Anuragi, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 01.09.2020
Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020

ORDER
PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.

This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, Dated 11.02.2020 for the A.Y. 2009-2010, on the following grounds : 

1. That the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.92,84,18,760.

1.1. That the C1T(A) failed to appreciate that the findings of the assessing officer were contrary to and in blatant violation of the binding decision/ finding of the CIT(A)/ Tribunal in the appellant’s own case.

2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding owelty of Rs.93,88,81,656 received by the appellant pursuant to a family settlement to be taxable as ‘long-term capital gain’ on transfer of shares.

2.1. That the CIT(A) erred in concluding that the amount received by the appellant was not towards equalization of family interests and was thus, not in the nature of owelty, but was consideration received for ‘transfer’ of shares, being personal property 

2.2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts in law in holding memorandum of family settlement to be an agreement for sale of shares, without appreciating the nature of the family settlement.

3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in alternatively holding that the appellant’s plea regarding non-taxability of the amount received pursuant to family settlement to be in the nature of retraction, which is not permissible in law.

3.1. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no estoppel against law and merely because an amount, not taxable in law, is erroneously offered for tax in the return of income, cannot confer jurisdiction to tax the said amount.

4. Without prejudice, that the CIT(A) erred in not setting aside the action of the assessing officer considering the indexed cost of acquisition of shares at Rs.75,77,001 as against Rs.99,80,872 claimed by the appellant in the original return. 

4.1. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the aforesaid action of the assessing officer is in blatant violation of the binding decisions of the CIT(A)/ ITAT inasmuch as the said issue already stood adjudicated in favour of the appellant.

5. That the CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.45,00,000, being compounding fee paid by M/s. Monica Electronics Limited to the excise department.

To view / download the full judgment, find the enclosed file