TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (2) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 17.06.2015 disclosing total income of Rs.4,44,250/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune ('the Assessing Officer') vide order dated 30.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') at total income of Rs.2,31,38,599. While doing so, the Assessing Officer denied the claim for exemption of capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,17,47,109/- by holding that the transactions of purchase of shares of the scrip M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd. and subsequent sale is nothing but a bogus transaction by relying upon the investigation report by the Investigation Wing of the Departm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. Since the issue in the present appeal is no more res integra, covered by several judicial precedents as well as the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj, 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta), we proceed to dispose of the same after hearing the ld. Sr. DR even in the absence of assessee. 7. The ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A) submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra), the order of the ld. CIT(A) be upheld. 8. We heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to whether or not the claim for exemption of capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act is genuine. The material facts to be note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rovided and the said companies were managed/operated by Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt. The investigation report of the Income Tax Department was available in the public domain and also narrated the modus operandi adopted for the purpose of claiming the bogus long term capital gains. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had called upon to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions of purchase and sale of shares in the light of his findings. The Assessing Officer also furnished the copies of the statement recorded from entry providers. It is born on record that despite the adequate opportunity afforded to the appellant, the appellant had failed to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer. In the circumstances, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction is void ab initio. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Friends Trading Co. vs. Union of India in Civil Appeal No.5608 of 2011 vide order dated 23.09.2022 held in the context of availment of alleged forged DEPB under the Customs Act, wherein, it was found DEPB licenses were forged and it was held that the exemption benefit availed on such forged DEPB are void ab initio on the principle that fraud vitiate everything and the period of limitation was held to have no application and the Department was held to be justified in invoking the extended period of limitation and the fact that whether the beneficiary had no knowledge of about the fraud/forged and fake DEPB licenses have no bearing the imposition of custom duty. The ratio of ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her side he would be guilty of playing fraud on court as well as on the opposite party. 22. In Smt. Shrist Dhawan v. M/s. Shaw Brothers [AIR 1992 SC 1555] it has been opined that fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal [AIR 2002 SC 33], Ram Preeti Yadav v. U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and other [(2003) 8 SC 311] and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and others [(2003) 8 SCC 319]. 23. In State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T. Suryachandra Rao [AIR 2005 SC 3110] after referring to the earlier decision this court....