2023 (8) TMI 1013

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee is contesting the addition made under section 69 of the Act towards unexplained investment in jewellery. 3. We have heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. The assessee is an individual and deriving income by way of salary, capital gains and income from other sources. The Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department found out that certain concerns floated by Rajendra Jain Group are providing accommodation entries in the form of purchase of diamond and jewellery. It was noticed that the assessee has purchased jewellery for a sum of Rs. 2,27,250/- from M/s. Kriya Impex Pvt. Ltd. and for Rs. 3,00,240/- from M/s. Arihant Exports, both aggregating to Rs. 5,27,490/-. Both the above said concerns belonged to Rajendra ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vestment. Hence, we are of the view that there is no scope for treating the above said purchases as unexplained investment warranting addition of under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance under section 69 of the Act. 7. We shall now take up the appeal filed for A.Y. 2014-15, wherein the assessee is contesting the assessment of sale value of the shares of Rs. 15,69,750/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. 8. The facts of the issue are that the assessee has sold 32500 shares of M/s. Blazon Marbles Ltd. and earned long term capital gains of Rs. 10,85,076/-, which was claimed by the assessee as exempt under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and sale of shares. We notice that the aggregate value of investments held by the assessee as on 31.3.2014 was Rs. 3.78 crores, which consisted of investments made in 73 companies. We further notice that the purchase of shares has been accepted by the revenue in the earlier year and hence it may not be correct to treat the sale consideration as bogus in nature. We also notice that it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that either the assessee or the stock broker has been subjected to investigation by the SEBI. We also noticed that the Assessing Officer has entirely relied upon the report given by the investigation wing without making further investigation in order to find out whether the assessee was part of the group which indulged i....