TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eting of the addition of Rs. 44,43,680/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by treating the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the AY 2005-06 on 16.02.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 19,294/-. The AO received information from the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-Unit-IV (4) that (i) the assessee had shown sale proceeds of shares in the scrip 'Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd.' as LTCG and claimed exemption, (ii) the assessee had claimed to have purchased that scrip at Rs. 3.12 per share in the year 2003 and sold the same at Rs. 165.83 per share in the year 2005, (iii) those scrips were penny-stock and the capi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has been given 2. Shares have been purchased, demated and sold for which necessary bills have been issued. 3. Shares have been sold through demat a/c and against the sale payment has been received by a/c payee cheque etc. 4. STT shares have been sold on recognized stock exchange on which STT have been paid. 4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) having gone through the copy of bank pass book, broker's bills for purchase and sale of shares, contract note, demat account, statement of STT, held that the AO did not have any material on record to show that the sale of shares were bogus. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the order of the Tribunal mentioned at para 3.6 of the appellate order and also the decision in the case of CIT vs. Arun Kumar Agarwal (HUF) (2012) 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dravadan Jain HUF (ITA No. 4861/Mum/2014) - ITAT 'I' Bench, Mumbai, Arun Kumar Agarwal (supra), Chandrakant Babulal Shah vs. The Assessing Officer, Ward-16(2)(4) (ITA No. 6108/Mum/2009) - ITAT 'C' Bench, Mumbai, Mayur M. Shah (HUF) vs. ITO (ITA No. 2390/Mum/2013) - ITAT 'SMC' Bench, Mumbai, Asst. Commissioner of I.T. 14(3) vs. Shri Ravindrakumar Toshniwal (ITA No.5302/Mum/2008) - ITAT 'D' Bench, Mumbai and Smt. Durgadevi Mundra vs. ITO (ITA No.1175/Mum/2012) - ITAT 'SMC' Bench Mumbai. 7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below: Exactly a similar issue arose before the ITAT 'I' Bench, Mumbai in the case of M/s Indravadan Jain HUF (supra). In that case a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. The AO further stated that investigation revealed that transaction through M/s Periwal and Co. on the floor of stock exchange was more than 83%. We found that as far as initiation of investigation of broker is concerned, the assessee is no way concerned with the activity of the broker. Detailed finding has been recorded by CIT(A) to the effect that assessee has made investment in shares which was purchased on the floor of stock exchange and not from M/s Basant Periwal and Co. Against purchases payment has been made by account payee cheque, delivery of shares were taken, contract of sale was also complete as per the Contract Act, therefore, the assessee is not concerned with any way of the broker. Nowhere the AO has alleged that the tr....