TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. order passed u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which is incomplete and also bad on facts. 2.0(a) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in by accepting the addition of long term capital gain Rs. 75,13,404/- as account of income from undisclosed sources u/s. 68 of the Act 2.0(b) Without prejudice to above grounds, that on on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. by erred in treating long term capital gain as accommodation entries and bogus entries. 2.0(c) Without prejudice to above grounds, that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. by not proving right for cross-examining the director and or promoters and or broker of the company in which investment was made. 2.0(d) Without prejudice to above g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....course of scrutiny assessment, it was noticed by the assessing officer that assessee had shown income from Long Term Capital Gains from sale of shares of M/s Mishka Finance Ltd, amounting to Rs. 75,13,404/-. This Long Term Capital gain was claimed exempt from Income tax as per section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee had declared following calculation regarding income from long term capital gain on sale of shares of Mishka Finance Ltd. Name of Company Sale Price Purchase price Exempt u/s 10(38) Mishka Finance Ltd. 75,40,904 27500 75,13,404 On-going through the documents filed by the assessee it was noted by the assessing officer that the assessee purchased the shares of Mishka Finance & Trading Ltd on 26.04.2012. The purchase details are as follows: Name of seller Name of script No. of shares Date of purchase Amount How acquired Roongta Rising Stock P. Ltd. M/s Mishka Finance & Trading Ltd. 2500 26.04.2012 27500/- @ Rs. 11 Online purchase The assessee furnished an invoice of Roongta Raising Stock Pvt. Ltd, dated 26.04.2012 with regard to purchase of shares of Mishka Finance & Trading Ltd. The assessee in turn sold the shares through the broker Roo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of entry operators. Therefore, generation of LTCG 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 entities and ultimately reached to his/her hand by Cheque in the disguise of sale proceeds of listed security.Thus, the claim of Long Term Capital Gain u/s 10(38) is denied and assessed income from undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, accordingly, the amount of Rs. 75,13,404/- claimed as exempt income by the assessee against the sale of scrips of above mentioned scrip M/s Mishika Finance Ltd during the financial year 2014-15 (AY 2015-16) was treated as his undisclosed income u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act (taxable at the rate of 30% as provided u/s 115BBE). 7. Also giving commission for getting bogus Long Term Capital Gain has clearly been established by the Investigation Directorate, Kolkata. Hence, Rs. 3,75,670/- being 5% of Rs. 75,13,404/- claimed as Long Term Capital Gain, was disallowed under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as unexplained expenditure. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts: (i) PCIT vs Swati Bajaj, 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta) (ii) CIT vs Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd., 50 taxmann.com 110 (Delhi) (iii) Navodaya Castles (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT, 56 taxmann.com 18 (SC) (iv) ITO vs Shamim M. Bharwani, 69 taxmann.com 65 (Mumbai - Trib.) (v) Udit Kalra vs ITO, ITA No.6717/Del/2017 (vi) Hemil Subhashbhai Shah, ITAT Ahmedabad - ITA No.1121/Ahd/2018 & ITA No.961/Ahd/2019 (vii) Majoj Jain (HUF) vs ITO, ITAT Kolkata - ITA No.1782/Kol/2018 (viii) Suman Poddar vs ITO, 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) (ix) PCIT vs NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd., 103 taxmann.com 48 (SC) (x) NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. vs PCIT, 117 taxmann.com 752 (SC) (xi) Shyam Sunder Bajaj vs ITO, 145 taxmann.com 315 (Kolkata Trib.) (xii) Sangeeta Devi Jhunjhunwala vs ITO, ITAT Delhi - ITA No.474/Del/2022 (xiii) PCIT vs Nand Kishore Agarwala, 143 taxmann.com 402 (Calcutta) (xiv) Anirudh Vekata Ragi vs ITO, 156 taxmann.com 608 (Hyd. Trib.) (xv) Saroj Baid vs ITO, 155 taxmann.com 630 (Kolkata Trib.) (xvi) Dinesh Kumar R. Tulsyan (HUF) vs ITO, 149 taxmann.com 98 (Pune - Trib.) (xvii) Abhishek Gupta vs ITO, 147 taxmann.com 21 (Indore - Trib.) (xviii) Archana Rajendra Malu vs ITO, 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....indulged in scrip of shell company and had claimed long term capital gain on sale of shares and made addition under section 68 holding that entire transaction was bogus and in the nature of penny stock, however, since genuineness of investment in shares by assessee was substantiated by him by producing copy of transaction statement for period from 01.06.2001 to 01.10.2010 and shares were retained for more than ten years and were sold after such long time, hence investment was not bogus therefore it cannot be treated that investment was made in penny stock. The findings of the Hon`ble Court is reproduced below: "2. As submitted by learned senior advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt for M.R.Bhatt and Co., the appellant revenue proposes the following substantial questions of law, which according to the submission requires examination. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the decision of Appellate Tribunal is ex facie perverse because the Appellate tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 2,10,474/- made on account of bogus long term capital gain, without appreciating the entire gamut of fact that the assessee transacted in penny stock namely M/s. Devika Proteins Ltd. thu....