TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lained cash credits u/s. 68 of income tax act,1961. 4 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the assessee has actually purchased and sold the shares accordingly, through Recognised SEBI which confirms the validity and genuineness of the transactions made by the assessee. 5 The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that AO erred in treating the amount of Rs. 1,14,930/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of Income Tax Act,1961 for paying amount to the broker for arranging the transactions. 6 I The Ld.CIT (A) erred not considering the fact that the shares sold were acquired in earlier years and that the AO has not doubted the purchase of shares. When the purchases are not doubted, doubting sales is illogical. 7 The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the various evidences filed by the assessee in the form of Bank Statements, Details of shares purchased, Share Bills, Confirmation letters, Statement of Accounts, Ledger copies about the existence, genuineness of the sales and purchases made during the year under consideration. 8. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the Assessing officer has made the disallowance merel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....genuine. 20 The assessee may add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal." 1.1 The sum and substance of the grounds raised by the assessee is against the disallowance of assessee's claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act. 2. The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family into the business of commodities trading, filed its return of income on 17/10/2016 declaring income of Rs. 36,16,340/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, statutory notices were issued to the assessee, against which, the assessee furnished the information as called for. 2.1 The AO observed that the assessee maintains books of account in respect of its business. However, in its computation of income, the assessee had computed Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 37,05,325/- and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the IT Act. He further observed that the assessee is in the business of commodities and shares trading and had never claimed exemption u/s 10(38) in earlier years for the AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 and, therefore, all of a sudden earning of such huge exempted income form LTCG requires for ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....O disallowed the same after examining the details. He also observed that the profitability of the company of which shares were sold are very meagre amount and the price of the shares were gone up. The issue was examined in detail by the AO and held that the assessee has routed his unaccounted money through sale of shares with high price and claimed LTGS under section 10(38) of the Act. 7.1 Similar issue came up before the coordinate bench of this Tribunal (wherein both the Members are party) in the case of shri Tarun Kumar Goel and Shri Arun Kumar Goel in ITA Nos. 456 to 458/Hyd/2020, order dated 20/04/2012 wherein the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. Further, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi and others in ITA No. 125/2020 and others, vide judgment dated 15/01/2021 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed as under: "10. We have heard Mr. Hossain at length and given our thoughtful consideration to his contentions, but are not convinced with the same for the reasons stated hereinafter. 11. On a perusal of the record, it is easily discernible that in the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urely an assumption based on conjecture made by the AO. This flawed approach forms the reason for the learned ITAT to interfere with the findings of the lower tax authorities. The learned ITAT after considering the entire conspectus of case and the evidence brought on record, held that the Respondent had successfully discharged the initial onus cast upon it under the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. It is recorded that "There is no dispute that the shares of the two companies were purchased online, the payments have been made through banking channel, and the shares were dematerialized and the sales have been routed from de-mat account and the consideration has been received through banking channels." The above noted factors, including the deficient enquiry conducted by the AO and the lack of any independent source or evidence to show that there was an agreement between the Respondent and any other party, prevailed upon the ITAT to take a different view. Before us, Mr. Hossain has not been able to point out any evidence whatsoever to allege that money changed hands between the Respondent and the broker or any other person, or further that some person provided the entry to conver....