TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 1009
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion made by the assessing officer in the assessment 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 'pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition under that section was not sustainable in law. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals), who, after considering the submissions, sustained the finding of the assessing authority. Now the assessee 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 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fer that the appellant had not really participated in any of the races except to the extent of purchasing the winning tickets after 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant's explanation that the said receipt is on account of investment in shares, whereby shares of unknown company have jumped in no time has been totally rejected by the AO. The appellant has not at all been able to adduce cogent evidences in this regard. There is no economic or financial justification for the sale price of these shares. The fantastic sale price realization is not at all humanly probable, as there is no economic or financial basis that a share of little known company would jump so high. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO. Also, the case laws on which appellant has relied have different set of facts. In view of the facts discussed in earlier paras, I am of the considered ....