TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded by common order to avoid conflicting decision. The assessee has raised following grounds in ITA No. 15/SRT/2024:- "1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts to uphold AO's addition of Rs. 46,96,881/- made on account of disallowance of appellant's claim of exempt income u/s 10(38) of the IT Act being LTCG on listed company's shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. He further erred in making such addition /s 68 of the IT Act." 2. Perusal of record shows that impugned order passed by NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) on 16.10.2023, however, both appeals filed by assessee on 08.01.2024. Thus, there is delay of 24 days in filing appeals before Tribunal. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.AR) for the assessee submitted that he has filed affidavit of assessee for condonation of delay in filing appeals. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that regular tax matter of assessee are being handled by Shri Subashbhai Shah and the appeals matter by him. As now-adays almost all the income tax proceedings are conducted through electronic mode in a faceless regime, so the communication of order of NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) on the ITBA portal was not in the knowledge of present Authorized Representative as the regula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which was earlier known as Conart Traders Ltd. The assessee has claimed LTCG as exempted under section 10(38) of the Act. The Assessing Officer recorded that he has information from Investigation Wing Kolkata that there was large scale of manipulation in market price share of certain listed companies of Bombay Stock Exchange (BSC for short) and certain persons were working as a syndicate in order to provide entries of exempted LTCG. The Assessing Officer recorded the modus operandi of such manipulation and noted that Investigation Wing identified 84 old companies which were listed in BSC and were being used for providing bogus accommodation entry of LTCG. Sunrise Asian Ltd., was one of such entity whose share was manipulated by the syndicate operators. The Sunrise Asian Ltd. was suspended by SEBI. On the basis of such observation, the Assessing Officer issued show cause notice dated 19.12.2017. The contents of show cause notice recorded in para-8 of assessment order. In the show cause notice, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has made purchase of share of Sunrise Asian Ltd. on 02,.10.2011 at a cost of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The shares were sold on 29.05.2014 at a consideration of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The assessment order was rectified by invoking section 154 by Assessing Officer on 15.03.2021. While passing rectification order, the Assessing Officer brought the addition of under section 68 for taxing under special tax rate @ 30%. Further added undisclosed expenditure @ 5% of LTCG thereby added Rs. 2,34,844/- as undisclosed expenditure. 7. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, assessee has filed appeal before Ld.CIT(A) in quantum assessment as well as against the order of rectification under section 154. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee is recorded in para4.4 on pages 4 to 7 of the order of Ld. CIT(A). In the submission, the assessee reiterated almost similar submission as explained before Assessing Officer. The assessee also relied on various case law of Tribunal as well as different Hon'ble High Courts. The NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer in a single sentence "that he has no hesitation in dismissing the appeal of assessee by relying on decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj (2022) 139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal). The NFACT/Ld.CIT(A) also confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y discharged her onus in proving the genuineness of such transaction. To support his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: Damodar Jajoo vs ITO in ITA No. 183-184/Srt/2021 dated 09/12/2022, Divyaben Prafulchand Vs ITO in ITA No. 73/Srt/2013 dated 27/07/2013, PCIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) ITA No. 454 of 2018 ( Bombay High Court) and ITO Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) in ITA No. 4861 & 5168/Mum/2018 dated 27.95.2016, CIT vs. Himani M. Vakil [2014] 41 taxmann.com 425 (Guj)/[2014] 221 Taxman 140 (Guj)(Mag.)[25-09-2012] PCIT vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar [2021] 130 taxmann.com 177 (SC)/[2021] 282 Taxman 301 (SC)[02-08-2021], PCIT vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (2021) 130 taxmann.com 176 (Guj), Parasben Kasturchand Kochar Mehtea Lodha & Co. vs. ITO in ITA No. 549/AHD/2018 dated 20.02.2020, 10. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities and submits that Assessing Officer was having information that the company, the share scrip of which was purchased by assessee was indulging in providing accommodation entries and assessee has shown abnormal profit within a short span of time. The Ld. Sr-DR for the ....