AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming the addition made by the AO on account of long term capital gain of Rs. 21,05,853/- earned by the assessee on sale of shares of Mis. KappacPharma Ltd. and treated the same as bogus and is taxable as unexplained cash credit U/S 68 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act. 3.That the Ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law and on facts of the appellant case in holding that assessee manipulated the transactions to earn long term capital gain. Such findings are contrary to evidences filed by the assessee and there is no evidence of assessee's involvement in any way in the alleged manipulations. 4.That the findings and allegations made by the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO by relying on the outcome of alleged investigations made by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department in Kolkata and observation of NSE/SEBI/SIT are based on surmises conjectures and imagination without any live link or involvement of the assessee with the alleged investigations. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO grossly erred in .law in holding that the assessee's name appeared in the list of beneficiaries investigated by the Kolkata Investiga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sly erred in law by not appreciating the judgements on which the assessee relied upon and not distinguished the facts of the assessee's case with these judgements. Thus, prayed to be applied on the assessee's case. 15. That the reliance of the Ld. CIT(A)/AO on certain judgments in the CIT(A) Order as well as Assessment Order are misplaced and prayed not to be applied on the assessee's facts. 16. That the Ld. CIT/AO grossly erred in law in treating the transaction of sale of shares of Kappac Pharrna Ltd. as ingenuine although the transaction of purchase of such shares was already accepted by the Ld. AO in earlier years. 17. The addition made by the AO and further confirmed by the CIT(A) of Rs. 1,43,210/- on the alleged commission paid to one Sh. Davesh Upadhaya is bad in law and is without evidence. 18. That the assessee had no link or connection with the said Upadhaya and the additions has been made on conjectures, surmises and imagination and is prayed to be deleted. 19. That the charging of interest U/S 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and is prayed to be deleted. . 20. That the penalty proceedings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act. 8. That the Ld. AO has passed the order and further confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) by collecting the evidences at the back of the assessee without confronting such evidences to the assessee which is against the principles of fair play and natural justice. The Order passed ignoring these vital principles is prayed to be quashed. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer grossly erred in law in holding that assessee was not regular ordinary investor although it was holding shares in many other companies, apart from M/s. Kappac Pharma Ltd. 10. That no evidence has been brought on record of the Hon'ble CIT(A)/Assessing Officer which conveys that assessee was involved in converting its unaccounted money through the route of exempt capital gains. The Order is prayed to be declared as null and void. 11. That the references made by the Ld. AO in his order pertaining to the financials of M/s. Kappac Pharma Ltd. or Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. or modus operandi adopted by the certain unrelated concerns/persons and further upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) has no connection or relevance to the facts of the assessee's case and the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gus and M/s Kappac Pharma has been delisted by the Stock Exchange. He further stated that the order of the ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of Udit Kalra vs. ITO (Supra) has been upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA No. 220/2019 & CM No. 10774/2019 vide order dated 08.3.2019. He has also filed the copy of the order dated 8.3.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and requested that by following the aforesaid precedents the appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 3. However, Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the grounds of appeal and has not produced any contrary order which controverts the contention of the Ld. DR, as aforesaid. He draw my attention towards Paper Book containing pages 1-70 in which he has attached the Memorandum of Appeal in Form no. 36; Grounds of Appeal; Certified true copy of assessment order dated 29.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act passed by the ITO; certified copy of CIT(A) order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-13, New Delhi; Form No. 35, Grounds of appeal and Statement of Facts before CIT(A), New Delhi, Tribunal Fee Challan for Rs. 10,000/- and Power of Attorney in our favour. He has draw my attention towa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ths; the acquisition price was Rs. 12/- per share whereas the market price of the shares at the time of their sale, was Rs. 720/-. It is contended that the assessee was not granted fair opportunity. Mr. Rajesh Mahna, learned counsel appearing for the assessee relied upon the orders of the co-ordinate Bench of the tribunal, in respect of the same company i.e. M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd., and pointed out that the tax authority's approach in this case was entirely erroneous and inconsistent. The main thrust of the assessee's argument is that he was denied the right to cross-examination of the individuals whose statements led to the inquiries and ultimate disallowance of the long term capital gain claim in the returns which are the subject matter of the present appeal. This court has considered the submissions of the parties. Aside from the fact that the findings in this case are entirely concurrent - AO., CIT(A) and the ITAT have all consistently rendered adverse findings - what is intriguing is that the company (Mis Kappac Pharma Ltd.) had meagre resources and in fact reported consistent losses. In these circumstances, the astronomical growth of the value of company's shares n....