2024 (3) TMI 1155 - AT - Income Tax

Taxpayer wins long-term capital gains exemption on penny stock transactions with proper documentation and STT payment under section 10(38) (38)

DCIT-19 (1), Mumbai Versus Pavankumar Bachhraj Chandan

DCIT-19 (1), Mumbai Versus Pavankumar Bachhraj Chandan - [2024] 114 ITR (Trib) 364 (ITAT [Mum]) Issues Involved:1. Deletion of addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Deletion of addition made u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Summary:Issue 1: Deletion of Addition Made u/s 68The revenue's main grievance was against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 2,30,79,975/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO noted that the assessee had claimed LTCG of Rs. 2,05,52,685/- on the sale of shares of M/s. Shaleen Textile Ltd, which was identified as a penny stock by the Kolkata Investigation Wing. The AO concluded that the financials of M/s. Shaleen Textile were weak and that the assessee's transactions were part of a pre-arranged scheme to convert black money into white through bogus LTCG claims. The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions, including share application forms, allotment letters, bank statements, demat account statements, and contract notes. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO had not provided the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine the alleged operators of bogus entities and had not disproved the evidence submitted by the assessee. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the AO had not found any infirmity in the primary documents filed by the assessee and had relied on a generalized investigation report without proving the assessee's involvement in any manipulation or rigging of share prices.Issue 2: Deletion of Addition Made u/s 69CThe AO had also made an addition of Rs. 4,61,600/- u/s 69C of the Act, alleging that the assessee might have incurred unaccounted expenditure on account of payment of commission to entry operators. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, noting that since the main addition u/s 68 was deleted, the consequential addition u/s 69C also had to be deleted. The ITAT agreed with the CIT(A), stating that the AO had not provided any evidence to prove that the assessee had incurred such expenditure.Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made u/s 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT noted that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions and that the AO had not disproved this evidence or provided any material to show the assessee's involvement in any manipulation of share prices. The ITAT also referenced several judicial precedents supporting the assessee's case.