TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 529
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r (2015-16) therefore, both the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Term Capital Gains (LTCG for short) of Rs. 46,96,881/- on sale of share of Sunrise Asian Ltd, 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and made addition thereof under section 68 of the Act. In the assessment order dated 29.12.2017. 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee or bringing any adverse materials against evidence furnished by assessee and assessee has fully 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count and details of bank transaction about the sale and purchase of shares, the addition was deleted. 12. We further that Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Indravadan Jain, HUF (supra) in Income Tax Appeal No. 454 of 2018 dated 12.07.2023 also held that when Assessing Officer nowhere alleged that transactions made by assessee with a particular broker or share broker was bogus, merely because investigation was done by SEBI against the broker or its activities, the assessee cannot be said to have entered into ingenuine transaction. We find that assessee made sale of shares through BSE and paid security transaction tax and there is no allegation against the share broker through whom assessee has made sales that they were indulging any price manipulation. Therefore, we do not find any justification in treating the LTCG as unexplained cash credit in absence of any cogent evidence. 13. So far as reliance in case of case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj (supra) by ld CIT(A) is concerned, we find We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Himani M. Vakil (supra) held that when the assessee proved genuineness of sale transaction by bringing on record....