TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....antamounts to borrowed satisfaction. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition without appreciating the fact that the Ld AO while recording the reasons was not sure whether the transactions were in respect of equity or derivative. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the reasons were recorded on wrong assumption of facts in as much as it has been incorrectly stated that the assessee had not disclosed the long term capital gain and treated the amount of Rs. 6656020/- as unexplained, which is factually incorrect as the same were duly disclosed in the return of income which, itself, vitiates the belied formed by the AO. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6652602/- without appreciating that the Ld AO had failed to dispose off the objections by speaking order. 5. That the assessment framed u/s 147 is bad in law as the AO has failed to provide information in the form of investigation report, statement of Raj Kumar Modi, list of 19 scrips and the document where the name of the assessee is appearing in the list of beneficiaries 6. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on the presumption that no prejudice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... material nor cross examination of Raj Kumar Modi whose statement was heavily relied by the department. The Ld. AR contended that the assessment framed u/s 147 is bad in law as the AO has failed to provide information in the form of investigation report, statement of Raj Kumar Modi, list of 19 scrips and the document where the name of the assessee is appearing in the list of beneficiaries of the accommodation entries. The AR argued that the CIT(A) has grossly erred on law in holding that cross examination was not required under facts and circumstances of the case, ignoring the fact that statement of Sh. Raj Kumar Modi was the sole basis for initiating re-assessment proceedings and that he failed to appreciate the fact that there was nothing on record to implicate the assessee that he was involved in getting entry after making payment in cash. He pleaded that the addition made may be deleted with the support of a synopsis, paper book and citations would be referred in the adjudication. 4. The Ld. DR relies on the impugned order. 5. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order, written submissions and case laws cited before us. It is seen that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ip No of Shares Sold Amount(In Rs.) 14.05.2012 PMC Fincorp Ltd 4000 15,64,521.00 21.05.2012 PMC Fincorp Ltd 3000 11,56,981.00 11.06.2012 PMC Fincorp Ltd 3000 12,09,240.00 13.12.2012 PMC Fincorp Ltd 5000 26,94,330.00 Total 15000 66,25,602.00 9. The Counsel contended that the following documents were also submitted during the Assessment and appellate proceedings, which estblish that there was no such direct or indirect transaction was ever made with Raj Kumar Modi. Therefore, reliance upon investigation report where there is no mention of the name of the assessee is against the facts and circumstances of the case. The details of documents submitted is tabulated as under: - Sr. No Particulars Remarks 1 Copy of purchase bill of shares Please refer page no. 5 of PB 2 Demat a/c Statement Please refer page no. 6 of PB 3 Client Ledger maintained by Religare Securities Please refer page no. 7-17 of PB 4 Saving bank account statement for the FY 2012-13 with Union Bank of India Please refer page no.18 of PB 10. It is noted that the assesses has established its claim before the lower authorities, based upon the documents namely bank details, the pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Hon'ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT has observed on exemption of capital gains under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as under- "Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Income arising from transfer of long term securities (Share dealings) - Assessment year 2013-14 - Assessee had sold shares of SNCFL and earned long-term capital gains - Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice alleging that transaction was a pennystock deal aimed at illegitimately claiming long-term capital gain exemption under section 10(38) - Assessing Officer treated purchase as bogus and added it to total income - Commissioner (Appeals) examined all relevant documents provided by assessee, including bills of purchases, broker account copies, bills for sales, and bank statements and held that purchases were made through a recognized broker via cheque, establishing their genuineness and, thus, he directed Assessing Officer to delete addition of LTCG claimed as exempt under section 10(38) - Tribunal upheld Commissioner (Appeals) decision stating that there was no evidence implicating assessee or broker in any wrongdoing related to SNCFL script - Whether in view of concurrent findin....