1 itxa669-10 sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.669 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax (c)-1 ..Appellant. V/s. Smt. Sarojbala Jain ..Respondent. Ms. Anamika Malhotra for the appellant. Ms. Sutapa Saha for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the amount of Rs.18,59,252/- received by the respondent-assessee be treated as long term capital gain instead of income from other sources, is the question raised in this appeal. 2. The assessing officer rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the transaction of sale of shares was not genuine and that the transaction was not carried out through Demat account. The Tribunal in its order has recorded finding of fact in para 5 of its judgment 2 itxa669-10 which reads as under:- " We have considered the rival submissions carefully. We find that Ld. DR has fairly submitted that there are no SEBI guidelines to the effect that transactions in sale and purchase of shares have compulsorily to be through Demat account only. The assessee has filed the necessary evidence in support of its case for purchase and sale of shares through broker before the Assessing Officer and the payments of the transaction are through banking channels only. The assessee has filed a letter from Highland Industries Ltd. dt. 15/10/02 addressed to the assessee acknowledging the transfer of shares in the name of the assessee. The copy of bank passbook of the relevant period has also been filed before the Assessing Officer. We find that the broker was a registered broker with the Stock Exchange, Mumbai and was also registered with SEBI. In these facts, we hold that there is no mistake in the order of the CIT(A) in deciding the issue in favour of the assessee and directing the Assessing Officer to assess the amount in question as long term capital gains for tax purposes by following the decision of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Shri Mukesh R. Marolla V/s. ACIT 6 SOT 247 (Mum) and accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of revenue are dismissed. " 3. In our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal that the transaction was genuine is based on finding of fact and no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. (SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)