TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 859
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claring total income of Rs. 3,56,370/-. The return was duly processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.07.2016 which was served upon the assessee. Thereafter, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 16.01.2017. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is carrying on business of share trading and deriving income from salary, capital gain and other sources. From the statement of income, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee claimed LTCG of Rs. 7,54,948/- being exempt under Section 10(38) of the Act on sale of shares of Kappac Pharma Limited. The assessee was called for details of production of sale of the said shares as well as mode of payment of demat account etc. From the details, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee purchased 5000 shares of Kappac Pharma Limited for amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Corporate Stick Broking Pvt. Ltd. on 02.04.2012. Out of which, 3000 shares were sold by the assessee on 25.11.2014 for an amount of Rs. 7,60,948/- and shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 7,54,948/- and claimed the said gain as exempt under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee wanted to avail the benefit accommodation entry by the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that the said shares were demated only on 04.10.2013. The said shares were sold on 25.11.2014 just to cover the period of 12 months as contemplated in Section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee has sold 5000 shares of Kappac Pharma Limited for Rs. 11,43,000/- which is not genuine transaction and is unaccounted income as the same was routed through the brokers and paper companies. The Assessing Officer further observed that the BSE had suspended trading in security of Kappac Pharma Limited on 07.01.2015 vide Circular dated 01.01.2015 but the assessee has sold the said scrip prior to the said suspension. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has chosen a dubious broker for sale of such shares which indicate the assessee's intention to avail the accommodation entry. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 7,54,948/- under Section 68 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR filed written submission before the CIT(A) and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ham transactions by transacting in the shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd. to bring her unaccounted income in the guise of exempted long term capital gain. Further, many opportunities were given to the assessee to establish its case even in para no.3.11 of assessment order, AO has mentioned that conclusions cannot be drawn on surmises and accordingly a through enquiry was conducted to establish that Kappac Pharma Ltd. was indeed a penny stock. 2. It is an undisputed fact that shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd. were bought off market and consideration was paid in cash by the assessee as detailed in para no.3.10 of assessment order. As mentioned in aforesaid para no. 3.10 of the assessment order, it is quite surprising to note that despite having an active demat account which was being used for buying and selling of shares on bourses since 2006, assessee bought the shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd. off market that to in cash. Thus, on the one hand assessee was transacting in shares through its demat account and paying for the same through banking channels while on the other hand, simultaneously assessee bought shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd. off market that to in cash. This factum of purchase of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....accounted income/ black money. 6. In support of assessment order, respectful reliance is being placed on the following judgments: i) Order of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of the assessee itself for A.Y.2014-15 in ITA No.940/Ahd/20l8 dated 30.01.2023. ii) Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Udit Kalra, 2019(4)TM/834. iii) Decision of Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT-5 Kolkata vs. Swati Bajaj (IA No.GA/2/2022 in ITAT /6/2022)." 8. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. In A.Y. 2014-15, as contemplated by the assessee/AR, the cross-examination is asked in the present A.Y. but from the perusal of the Assessment Order and the observation independently given by the Assessing Officer in respect of purchase and sale of the script of Kappac Pharma Limited, the statements or in respect of cross-examination or examination will not come in purchase in the present scenario and, therefore, not commenting on the request without cross-examination was properly done by the Assessing Officer. The contention of the Ld. AR is hence rejected. The assessee has purchased this s....