TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.53,83,045/- made on account of the Long Term Capital Gain fraudulently claimed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,61,491/- made on account of unexplained expenditure of payment of commission u/s. 69C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,50,000/- made on account of unexplained expenditure of payment made to M/s. Shivling Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the price....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so added Rs. 1,50,000 being purchase value to assessee's income under section 69C of the Act. Accordingly, the total income was computed at Rs.1,21,03,266 in the assessment order framed under section 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) disagreed with the Ld. AO's rejection of assessee's claim of tax exempt LTCG of Rs.53,83,045 and also deleted the remaining additions of Rs.1,61,491 and Rs.1,50,000 made under section 69C of the Act by observing as under: "5.1f. From the above sub-paras, it can be safely inferred that there is neither any direct evidence against the appellant nor any adverse comments on the evidences produced by him at the assessment stage. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....491/-), it is observed that it is mentioned therein inter alia. "...Therefore, generation of Long Term Capital Gain through the process from purchase to receipt of cheque is totally arranged and actually no capital gain arose, but assessee's own cash has been routed through different entitles and ultimately reached to his hand by cheque in the disguise of sale proceeds of listed security... The detailed analysis of evidences available on record and the case laws quoted above provide enough support against the arguments of the assessee that his share transactions are genuine. Thus, in view of the elaborate discussion made above, I hereby hold the amount of Rs.53,83,045/- claimed as LTCG by you during the financial 2013-14 (AY 2014-1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de u/s 68 in the impugned order was deleted, the present addition u/s. 69C regarding commission is also deleted. No evidence was observed in the impugned order regarding such payment of commission @ 3% for the accommodation entry as mentioned therein. The ground at (g) is allowed. 5.2b As far as the addition of the purchase price of the scrips of CPAL (Rs.1,50,000) in the impugned order, it is observed there from that despite any adverse inference on the evidence placed at the assessment stage in this regard - copy of bank statement corroborating the payment made to M/s. Shivling Merchantile Pvt. Ltd. (seller) the addition has been made. Accordingly, in view of the absence of any adverse inference drawn therefore, the addition made....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has low tax effect which fact has not been controverted by the Ld. DR. 8. The CBDT Circular No.23 dated 06.09.2019 and Office Memorandum dated 16.09.2019 carving exception to the monitory limits in cases claiming bogus LTCG/STCL through penny stocks and filing appeals etc. in such cases came much after the authorization to file appeal under section 253(2) of the Act in the case of the assessee before ITAT was given on 28.05.2018 by the Pr. CIT, Delhi-10. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Surendra Shantilal Peety (2022) 138 Taxmann.com 75 (Bom.), the Ld AR submitted that the aforesaid Circular No.23 of 2019 read with Office Memorandum dated 16.09.2019 not having retrospective effect is inapplicable ....