TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 1013
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o so. 3.That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is decided. Ground of appeal in IT(SS)A No.223/Ind/2019, Smt. Sona Lila 1.The Learned Assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 3,59,495/-. 2. The Learned AO has erred in making the addition of Rs. 3,59,495/- ignoring the evidence filed by the appellant in support of income from Capital Gain. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred in treating the income of Long Term Capital Gain as income from other sources without having any material or evidence on record to do so. 4.That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is decided. Ground of appeal in IT(SS)A No.224/Ind/2019, Shri Shankar Kumar Lila 1.The Learned Assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 81,322/-. 2. The Learned AO has erred in making the addition of Rs. 81,322/- ignoring the evidence filed by the appellant in support of income from Capital Gain. 3. That the Ld. AO has erred in treating the income of Long Term Capital Gain as incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red to adjudicate the common issues raised before us. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is a member of Lilasons Group of Bhopal. Search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 28.10.2010 at various business premises of Lilasons Group and individuals connected to this group. The assessee was also subject to search. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued followed by serving of notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act. The assessee has been consistently filing the returns and original return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 was filed on 31.07.2005 declaring income of Rs. 10,54,407/-. Similar income was again disclosed in the return filed in compliance to notice u/s 153A of the Act submitted on 21.02.2012. Though a common assessment order has been framed for A.Ys. 2005-06 to 2010-11 but our adjudication is confined to A.Y. 2005-06 only. 4. During the assessment proceedings while examining the computation of income Ld. AO observed that the assessee has shown Long Term Capital Gain at Rs. 4,24,313/-. Details were called and the same were duly filed including the contract note for purchase and sale, DEMAT account for transfer of shares and bank s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of non-abated assessments. Thus, the present addition itself is without any basis and liable to be deleted. CIT vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del.) CIT vs Continental Warehousing Corporation 58 taxmann.com 78 (Bom.) Om Shakthy Agencies (Madras) P Ltd. 157 ITD 1062 (Trib. Chennai) Parag M. Sanghvi 63 taxmann.com 118 (Trib. Mumbai) 5. Without prejudice, it is submitted that the in respect of the transaction of capital gains, the following details are furnished: - i. The Demat statement for purchase and sale of shares is at PB 4-5. The transaction is duly reflected in the Demat statement of the assessee. ii. Through this Demat only, the sale proceeds of various other listed companies like Axis Bank, Bank of India, Colgate etc were reflected, which has not been doubted by the department. iii. The share broker was DPS shares and Securities, who was duly registered with SEBI. He gave contract notes and broker statement which are placed at PB 6-19. iv. The shares were sold through banking channels and the amount was received in the bank of the assessee. PB 20. v. It is pertinent to note that the pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... various judgments, unless there are evidences to prove that the transaction was camouflaged; and unless the material was provided to the assessee. Merely use of the words "penny stock" cannot act as a magical words to deem any transaction as bogus. The respondents have to bring evidence to establish the transaction as bogus. In the present case, the assessee has given evidences to establish that the transaction is genuine. Reliance is placed on following cases: i. Pr. CIT vs Smt. Krishna Devi (Del. HC) - PB 21-30 ii. Arzoo Anand (Trib. Indore) - PB 31-43 iii. Smt. Smita P Patil (Trib. Pune) - PB 44-60 iv. ITO vs Smt. Arti Mittal (Hyd. Trib) - PB 61-78 v. Consistent Vyapaar Pvt Ltd. (Trib. Kol.) - PB 79-99 vi. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia (Trib. Mum.)- PB 100-161 vii. Saroj Damani (Trib. Mum.) - PB 162-179 viii. Smt. Karuna Garg (Trib. Del.) - PB 180-186 It is therefore prayed that the addition made may kindly be set-aside both on legal ground as well as on the merits. 7. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the finding of both the lower authorities and also submitted that there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as follows: Name of assessee Assessment year Capital Gain Remark Babita Lila 2005-06 4,24,313/- STCG Sona Lila 2007-08 3,59,495/- LTCG Shankar Kumar Lila 2006-07 81,322/- LTCG Anil Kumar Lila HUF 2006-07 18,978/- LTCG Anil Kumar Lila 2007-08 3,47,061/- LTCG Anil Kumar Lila HUF 2007-08 3,39,656/- LTCG 11. Ld. counsel for the assesse has filed separate paper books for each of the assessee(s) in appeal before us, providing the details of computation of income originally filed, DEMAT statement, statement from brokers, ledger account in the books of brokers, contract note, form no.10DB regarding payments of Security transaction tax and the bank statement. Though the Ld. DR in some of cases has referred to some mismatch in the names but the same were clarified by the Ld. counsel for the assessee to our satisfaction. 12. We, therefore, after carefully examining the documents placed before us are satisfied that the assessee had made genuine claim of capital gain (Long Term Capital Gain/Short Term Capital Gain) in their respective returns of income and both the purchase and sales of shares are proved t....