Tribunal upholds tax additions, denies exemption, criticizes delays.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the additions under sections 68, 69C, and 69 while denying the exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of timely justice and criticized the prolonged litigation and adjournments caused by the assessee's representative. The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the transactions were manipulated to evade taxes, involving artificial gains and unexplained income.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Prolonged litigation and adjournments.
2. Addition of Rs. 1,00,97,902/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Denial of exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Addition of Rs. 1,00,979/- under section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
5. Addition of Rs. 15,000/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Prolonged Litigation and Adjournments:
The Tribunal noted that the cases had been pending for several months due to multiple adjournments requested by the parties, particularly the assessee's representative. Despite being given a final opportunity to present evidence, the assessee's representative failed to provide a valid reason for further delay. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of timely justice, referencing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions in Ishwarlal Mali Rathod Vs. Gopal and Ors., stressing that routine adjournments should not delay justice.

2. Addition of Rs. 1,00,97,902/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act:
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) made an addition of Rs. 1,00,97,902/- to the assessee's income on account of unexplained income in the guise of long-term capital gains from the sale of shares of Mishka Finance and Trading Pvt. Ltd. The assessee had purchased these shares offline and later sold them at significantly higher prices. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] found that the transactions were manipulated to create artificial long-term capital gains. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the transactions were part of a scheme to evade taxes by manipulating share prices through a network of entry operators and brokers.

3. Denial of Exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee claimed an exemption under section 10(38) for the long-term capital gains from the sale of shares. The AO and CIT(A) denied this exemption, citing evidence from the Investigation Wing and SEBI reports which indicated that the share prices were artificially inflated to create bogus long-term capital gains. The Tribunal supported this decision, noting that the assessee failed to provide any substantial evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

4. Addition of Rs. 1,00,979/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act:
The AO added Rs. 1,00,979/- to the assessee's income, assuming it as commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, referencing a similar decision by the Mumbai Tribunal, which accepted a reasonable commission rate for such transactions. The Tribunal also upheld this addition, agreeing with the CIT(A) that such transactions typically involve commission payments to brokers or entry providers.

5. Addition of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act:
The AO added Rs. 15,000/- to the assessee's income, considering it as unexplained investment in the initial purchase of shares. The CIT(A) supported this addition, noting that the assessee failed to provide any proof of the source of this investment. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities. The additions under sections 68, 69C, and 69 were upheld, and the exemption under section 10(38) was denied. The Tribunal emphasized the need for timely justice and condemned the use of dilatory tactics by the assessee's representative.

---