TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1009
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act'). 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in denying exemption of long term capital gain ('LTCG') of Rs.34,27,017 on sale of equity shares of Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Limited claimed by the appellant under section 10(38) and making addition of such LTCG under section 68 of the Act alleging the same to be bogus in nature. 3. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the assessing officer in making aforesaid addition alleging that the appellant had obtained 'accommodation entry' in form of bogus LTCG through 'penny stock companies' solely on the basis of information received ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amend or vary from the aforesaid grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing." 2. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. It is seen from the record that the assessee has not been appearing since 20.01.2021 despite having been given opportunities. The notice of hearing sent to the assessee through speed post has been returned with remark "not traceable". Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and is being decided on the basis of material on record. 3. The only effective ground is against declining the claim of exemption in respect of long term capital gain on sale of equity shares of Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Limited and making the addition of such long term ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. At the outset learned DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has given a finding of fact regarding genuineness of the transaction. He contended that the transaction was accommodation entry arrangement. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 6. I have heard learned DR and perused the material on record. I find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has sustained the finding of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: "3.11 The appellant has mentioned that the report of Investigation Wing was general and did not concern with his case. No allegation is made against him in the report. This plea of the appellant is not acceptable because the Directorate ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the events presumably with unaccounted funds. When the present case is examined on the touch stone of above case law, it is clear that these transactions of the appellant can by no stretch of imagination be considered as investment transactions.. They are only make believe transaction. Hence I do not find any infirmity in the AO taxing the receipt in this regard. 3.13 In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that lots of inquiries have been made by the AO and substantial material is collected by him. The following particular facts, which have been gathered by the AO are relevant for this case. i. The assessee is not a regular investor. However, she has invested in the scrip i.e. M/s Esteem Bio Organic Food Processing Ltd and hi....