TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the head 'income from other sources' though it was exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act being long-term capital gains derived from sale of securities. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the learned AO for Rs. 61 lakhs by treating it as unexplained loans. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual earning income from salary, rent and interest income. The assessee filed her return of income on 23.11.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 44,83,200/-. The case of the assessee was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.03.2015 wherein the learned AO made the above-mentioned additions. 4. Ground No.1 - Unexplained money of Rs. 31,29,215/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the learned AO that the assessee has declared long term capital gains of Rs. 31,29,215/- towards sale of jewellery and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act against investment made in construction of house. Assessee was asked to show proof for the purchase of jewellery, whereas she had replied that the said jewellery was received from her mother on her 10th wedding anniversar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act. 6. Before us, the learned AR could not produce any materials to prove the genuineness of the transaction other than reiterating the submissions made before the Ld. Revenue Authorities. It is apparent from the admission of the seller of jewellery that there was no sale transaction with the assessee. The assessee had also not declared the jewellery before the Revenue earlier by filing wealth tax return. Therefore, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of Revenue authorities on this issue. Hence, the ground No.1 raised by the assessee is devoid of merits. 7. Ground No.2 - Addition of Rs. 1,86,32,023/- by disallowance u/s 10(38) of the Act. During the scrutiny assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Ld.AO that the assessee had sold 57,200 equity shares of Oasis Cine Communications Ltd., aggregating to Rs. 1,86,32,023/- on 12.03.2012 & 13.03.2012. On query, it was submitted that the assessee had acquired the shares by virtue of the amalgamation scheme of M/s. Gravity Barter Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Oasis Cine Communication Ltd sanctioned by the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dated 25.08.2011. It was further submitted that the assessee had acq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entries -to companies involved ill 2G scam. (iv) The purchase I sale of the shares did not conform to normal practice followed in share transactions, viz. (a) The payment for purchase was made after a gap of 10 months. (b) Shares were debited from DMAT A/c of the assessee after a gap of 11 months Of purchase. (c) Total consideration of Rs. 1.80 Gores was not received by the assessee on sale of shares. (d) Shares were debited from DMAT A/c of the assessee prior to the date of sale. (v) The transaction was with a completely unknown company having no business activity, and whose shares were purchased at a premium of Rs. 490 per share (face value was Rs. 10/-). (vi) The shares were sold to companies which were paper entries with little 0'- no business activity used for providing accommodation entries having same or similar kind of dummy Directors and controlled by Sri Anil Kumar Khemka. 13.1 This casts a big shadow of doubt on genuineness of transaction. The Assessing Officer confronted the assessee with all the evidence. The assessee admitted that she could not prove the genuineness of the transaction and off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also after a substantial delay which also raises doubt about the bonafide of the transaction, because as per norms of the Stock Exchange the stockbroker it is required to deliver the security and make payment within 48 hours of settlement of trade by the stock exchange. It was informed by RoC, Mumbai vide letter dated 13/1/2015 that no such transaction had taken place. The purchaser of share from the assessee did not have good credentials and appears to be bogus. The assessee has not furnished any convincing evidence to dispute these findings of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Further, the learned AR also could not present any cogent materials before us other than the manipulated documents to establish the transaction to be genuine or to counter the theory of preponderances of human probability as enlightened by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case relied upon by the learned AO (supra). Further it is apparent from the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities that the assessee is in the habit of introducing unexplained funds. In this situation, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of learned Revenue authorities on this issue. 12. Ground No.3 - Unexplained loan of ....