Allowing the appeals, the Court held that the the modus adopted by the assessee was a device to avoid tax. There was no material before the Tribunal to arrive at a finding that the price for which the shares were agreed to be sold was a justified reasonable price. As rightly pointed out by the Assessing Officer, there was no compulsion on the assessee or EBL to sell their shares at a low price after initiating the arrangements for handing over EBL and the Assessing Officer had found that nothing had changed since their sale for such low prices till the shares were sold for Rs. 127.35. The Tribunal did not attempt to examine the seized material which was the basis of the assessment proceedings. Papers and documents were recovered from the residence of the assessee and the companies controlled by the assessee. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard, was wholly unsubstantiated and without any material and consequently perverse. Court also held that according to the agreement, it was not clear who had represented MDAL as the agreement did not mention the name of the authorised signatory of the company. The photostat copy which was placed before the court contained the signatures of the assessee, two witnesses, a third party and the daughter of the assessee. There was one other signature which did not give any designation or the name of the person, who had signed it. The agreement based on which the assessee was paid a sum of Rs. 10 crores was an unregistered instrument. The Tribunal had brushed aside important facts more particularly, the sequence of events prior to the share transfer and thereafter. The Assessing Officer had rightly considered the entire transaction and concluded that it was a device employed by the assessee to evade tax. The finding of the Assessing Officer, in this regard, was justified, as it was found that the assessee and his family members had sold their shares to MDAL at Rs.14.25 paise per share, when the remaining shares held by EDL were sold by MDAL at a price of Rs. 125.37 paise per share and the assessee had received Rs. 10 crores as non-compete fee which the assessee had claimed was not taxable. The price of the shares which was shown at a much higher price in the hands of ESCL was to benefit the group company which had huge accumulated losses and consequently, the loss could be set off against the capital gains. The benefit which would accrue to the assessee was by lowering and splitting up of the consideration for shares and non-compete fee thereby being a device employed to evade tax.( AY.2002-03)