TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 588
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upheld AO's addition of Rs. 46,12,790/- 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 u/s 68 of the IT Act." 2. Perusal of record shows that impugned order passed by NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) on 02.06.2023, however, the appeal filed by assessee on 08.01.2024. Thus, there is delay of 160 days in filing appeal 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 appeal. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that regular tax matter of assessee is being handled by Shri Subashbhai Shah and the appeal ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we find that there is 160 days delay in filing appeal. The assessee is not likely to get any benefit in filing the appeals belatedly, rather there is always chance that such delay not be condoned. Considering the submission of Ld. AR for the assessee, wherein he has fairly accepted that he could not logged on the ITBA portal due to frequent changing in password by regular CA of assessee. We find that assessee has reasonably explained the cause of delay of 160 days, hence, the delay in the appeal is condoned. Now adverting the merits of the case. 5. Rival submissions of both the parties perused on record. The Ld.AR of the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that grounds of appeal raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not considered the submission of assessee and made addition with pre-determined notions. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer without appreciation of facts in a single sentence. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee furnished completed details about LTCG earned on sale of share held more than 12 months and payment made through banking channel. The assessee has paid security transactions tax (STT) and surplus earned on such sale was claimed as exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act. The sale of shares was made through BSE and all necessary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of such transactions were furnished before lower authorities. The Assessing Officer has not given any finding on the evide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....21], * 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 Revenue submits that assessee failed to disclose how she came to know about such company provided higher profit on sale of their shares and all transactions shown by assessee are nothing but a bogus penny stock s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inging to tax capital gain arising from sale of shares as unexplained cash credit. We further find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (supra) also held that when assessee discharged his onus by establishing that transactions were fair and transparent and all relevant details with regard to transfer furnished by Income Tax Authority and the Tribunal have also took the notice of fact that the shares remained in the account of assessee, the assessee also furnished demat account 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 App....