Tribunal Overturns Long Term Capital Gains Rejection, Cites Lack of Evidence and Suspicion in 2014-15 Tax Assessment.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the Assessing Officer's decision to reject the claim of Long Term Capital Gains on shares of M/s SRK Industries Ltd for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Tribunal found the addition under section 69C to be unsupported by concrete evidence, relying instead on generalizations and suspicion. The Commissioner (Appeals) had upheld the addition based on circumstantial evidence, but the Tribunal emphasized the necessity of decisions based on direct evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition and allowed the assessee's appeal, with the order pronounced on 05.10.2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Whether Assessing Officer correctly rejected claim of Long Term Capital Gains on shares.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax-(A)-10's order concerning the Assessment Year 2014-15, questioning the rejection of the claim of Long Term Capital Gains on shares of M/s SRK Industries Ltd by the Assessing Officer.

2. The Assessing Officer concluded the gains were bogus based on general observations and a report, adding the entire sale proceeds as income and disallowing exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting the evidence provided by the assessee.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition relying on circumstantial evidence, human probabilities, and rules of suspicious transactions without direct material to counter the assessee's evidence, which remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. The basis for the conclusions against the assessee was a general report from the Investigation Wing, not specific to the assessee.

4. The Tribunal consistently emphasized decisions should rely on evidence, not generalizations, suspicion, or conjectures. Previous cases were cited where similar additions were deleted based on lack of concrete evidence.

5. The Tribunal found the cited case laws applicable to the current case, with the Departmental Representative unable to counter the applicability of the decisions from High Courts and ITAT.

6. The Departmental Representative referenced a Supreme Court judgment, but the assessee's counsel argued that without an adverse SEBI order against the assessee or the relevant company, the Supreme Court judgment did not apply.

7. Consequently, the addition under section 69C was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

8. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting the questioned addition.

9. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in court on 05.10.2018.

---