TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this consolidated order. 2. The solitary issue that is raised in these appeals is whether the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's order, wherein the consideration received for sale of shares was treated as bogus transaction and addition was made u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, by rejecting the claim of deduction u/s 10(38) of the I.T.Act. 3. Facts are identical in these cases, except for variance in figures, hence, the facts pertaining to ITA No.1584/Bang/2019 are narrated and the decision rendered therein would apply mutatis mutandis to the other appeals also. 4. The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee, an individual, had filed return of income on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs. 7,16,950. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 20,99,260 (the entire sale consideration) was to be treated as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T.Act. Therefore, the assessee's claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T.Act was rejected. Further, the A.O. held that the unexplained cash credit of the assessee amounting to Rs. 20,99,260 is to be brought to tax at the rate of 30% as per section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T.Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the assessment by denying the benefit of exemption u/s 10(38) of the I.T.Act and making an addition u/s 68 of the I.T.Act, the assessee preferred an appeal to the first appellate authority. The CIT(A) rejected the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the view taken by the Assessing Officer. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot granting the exemption from transfer of Long-Term Capital Gains under the provisions of Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant had complied with all the pre-requisite conditions prescribed u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961, thereby making the "non-granting" erroneous. (c) The lower authorities have not considered the documents and evidences placed, and the various judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts which explained that just because the company is bogus or the recognized stock broker has been prohibited from trading further, does not hold the fact that the transaction made with relation to sale of long term shares of such company, are bogus. (d) The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....perused the material on record. The case was posted on several occasion, however, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee nor was there any letter of adjournment filed. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of this appeal on merits. I find that similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Shri. Kirti K.Bhansali v. ITO for assessment year 2008-2009 in ITA No.105/Bang/2019. Vide order dated 24.05.2019, the Tribunal held as under:- "4.3.1 I have considered the rival submissions and first of all, I reproduce Para No.8 of the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of M/s. Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra) and this is as under: "8. In the light of the facts and circumstances as advert....