Court dismisses appeal challenging addition of Bogus Long Term Capital Gain for lack of evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal challenging the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,65,27,020 made on account of Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. The appellant argued that the transactions for the purchase of shares lacked evidence of genuineness, as payments were only mentioned in cash without banking transactions. Despite reliance on a previous judgment in favor of the assessee, the court held that no substantial question of law arose, as the matter was similar to the precedent judgment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 2,65,27,020 made on account of Bogus Long Term Capital Gain.
2. Justification of the ITAT, Jaipur in deleting the addition when genuineness of payment for purchase of shares was not proved.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee regarding the addition of Rs. 2,65,27,020 made on account of Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. The appellant contended that the transactions for the purchase of shares were not genuine due to lack of evidence regarding the date of purchase of shares. The appellant questioned the justification of the ITAT in deleting the addition confirmed by the CIT (A). The appellant argued that the bills for the purchase of shares only mentioned cash payments, and no payments were made through banking channels. The appellant relied on a previous judgment of the court in a similar matter where the issues were decided in favor of the assessee. However, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose in this case based on the precedent judgment.

2. The primary issue in this case was the genuineness of the transactions related to the purchase of shares and the justification for deleting the addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT (A). The appellant raised concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the date of purchase of shares and the absence of payments through banking channels. The appellant sought to establish that the transactions were not genuine, leading to the addition of Long Term Capital Gain being deemed as bogus. However, the court, considering a previous judgment where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee, dismissed the appeal, stating that the matter was squarely covered by the precedent judgment and no substantial question of law arose for consideration in this appeal.

---