Tribunal allows exemption for Long Term Capital Gain, assessing transactions as genuine and well-documented.

The Tribunal overturned the decisions of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) regarding the addition of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the transactions were genuine, supported by proper documentation, and the assessee had provided all necessary evidence. The AO was directed to treat the gains as LTCG and delete the addition to the assessee's total income. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, with the order pronounced on 7th June 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of addition/disallowance by CIT(A) on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Addition/Disallowance by CIT(A) on Account of LTCG Claimed as Exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

Facts and Background:

The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2015-16, declaring total income of Rs. 9,90,050/-. The return included a claim of exemption for LTCG amounting to Rs. 21,96,793/- under section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This gain was derived from the sale of 5000 shares of M/s. CCL International Ltd. The shares were purchased in June 2013 for Rs. 2,60,000/- and sold in FY 2014-15 for Rs. 24,56,793/-. The transaction details, including purchase and sale documents, bank statements, and Demat account statements, were provided to the Assessing Officer (AO).

Assessment Proceedings:

The AO scrutinized the transaction, referencing an investigation by the Directorate of Investigation Wing, Kolkata, which identified M/s. CCL International Ltd. as a penny stock involved in providing bogus LTCG. The AO noted the bell-shaped trade pattern of the stock and the lack of substantial business credentials of the company. Consequently, the AO treated the LTCG claim as fictitious, adding Rs. 21,96,793/- to the assessee's total income as income from other sources. This decision was upheld by the CIT(A).

Arguments by the Assessee:

The assessee argued that the transactions were genuine, supported by documentary evidence, and conducted through recognized stock exchanges and brokers. The assessee cited the Delhi Tribunal's decision in Mukta Gupta vs ITO & Mohan Lal Agarwal (HUF) vs ITO, where similar transactions involving M/s. CCL International Ltd. were deemed genuine.

Arguments by the Revenue:

The Revenue contended that the scrips of M/s. CCL International Ltd. were artificially rigged to provide LTCG and referenced the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Binod Chand Jain, supporting the AO's and CIT(A)'s orders.

Tribunal's Findings:

The Tribunal noted that the AO's conclusion was based on a general report and lacked specific evidence linking the assessee to any dubious activities. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had provided all necessary documentation to substantiate the transactions, including purchase and sale details, bank statements, and Demat account statements.

The Tribunal referenced several judicial decisions, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in Andman Timber Industries vs CCE, which underscored the importance of providing an opportunity for cross-examination when statements from third parties are used against an assessee. The Tribunal also highlighted that genuine transactions should not be treated as ingenuine based on suspicion alone, citing cases like CIT vs Carbo Industries Holdings Ltd. and CIT vs Emerald Commercial Ltd.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the AO and CIT(A) had erred in treating the LTCG as bogus without concrete evidence. The Tribunal directed the AO to treat the gains as LTCG and delete the addition of Rs. 21,96,793/-. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

Order Pronounced:

The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 7th June 2019.

---