Tribunal upholds disallowance of capital gains exemption & deems advance as dividend

The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to disallow the exemption claimed under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act for long-term capital gains, adding the gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The Tribunal also affirmed the addition of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) due to an advance received by the assessee, as conditions were met. The decisions were based on investigations showing the transactions were non-genuine and the fulfillment of deemed dividend criteria.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of long-term capital gains.
2. Addition on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act on account of long-term capital gains:

The first issue pertains to the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding long-term capital gains claimed as exempt by the assessee. The assessee, engaged in the business of trading in paper, filed a return declaring a total income of Rs. 10,57,900. During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee sold 1,27,000 shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited for a trade value of Rs. 50,11,000 and claimed long-term capital gains of Rs. 48,59,287 as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act.

To verify the genuineness of the transaction, notices under section 133(6) were issued to SEBI, ROC, and BSE, Mumbai. SEBI's response indicated that Kailash Auto Finance Limited was barred from trading and penalized for artificially rigging prices to provide bogus long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer, referring to investigations by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, concluded that the financial transactions were sham and used as a device to evade tax. Consequently, the exemption claimed under section 10(38) was disallowed, and the gains were added as unexplained cash credit under section 68. The commission paid for the transaction was also disallowed.

The assessee appealed, arguing that the transactions were genuine and conducted through recognized channels. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on SEBI and Directorate of Investigation reports. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the lack of correlation between share price movements and the Sensex, and the evidence from independent authorities confirming the bogus nature of the transactions.

2. Addition on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act:

The second issue involves the addition made on account of deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. During the assessment, it was observed that the assessee received an advance of Rs. 28,53,251 from M/s A.R. International Private Limited, where the assessee held a 25.34% stake. The Assessing Officer treated this advance as deemed dividend, as the conditions under section 2(22)(e) were met, including the company possessing accumulated profits of Rs. 34,92,721.

The assessee claimed that the advance was for business purposes but failed to provide documentary evidence. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, and the Tribunal upheld this decision, confirming that the conditions for deemed dividend were satisfied.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the additions made under sections 68 and 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The decisions were based on substantial evidence and investigations confirming the non-genuine nature of the transactions and the fulfillment of conditions for deemed dividend.

---