TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Films Industry Ltd. @ Rs. 18% each and on a total consideration of Rs. 2,74,973/- through RTGS and online platform i.e. Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). Subsequently the shares were splitted into 1,50,000 shares. The Assessee subsequently sold the aforesaid shares @ Rs. 123/- each and on a total consideration of Rs. 1,84,38,566/- from 08.01.2010 to 14.01.2010 on the same platform i.e. BSE and consequently earned LTCG to the tune of Rs. 1,81,63,593/- received through RTGS/online mechanism of BSE. 3.1 The Assessee by filing its return of income on 28.07.2010 which was subsequently revised on 03.08.2010 declaring total income of Rs. 2,61,961/-, had claimed the Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 1,81,63,593/- on account of sale of shares of M/s. JMD Tele Films Industry Ltd. u/s 10(38) of the Act. 3.2 Subsequently, the AO on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate into 84 penny stocks including M/s. JMD Tele Films Industry Ltd. being one of it, reopened the case of and show caused the Assessee to justify its transactions carried out qua LTCG. The Assessee in order to establish the genuineness of the purchase of shares, provided the following....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....28.06.2019 passed by the adjudicating authority of SEBI, wherein the M/s. JMD Tele Films Industry Ltd. is also a party against whom the monetary penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been levied by considering the allegations of price rigging of shares by some other persons for the period from 15.06.2009 to 02.07.2009. Admittedly there are no allegations have been leveled and even no investigation has been carried out and no penalty or restriction has been imposed against the Assessee herein. The Assessee by filing the relevant documents duly supported the transactions of purchase and sales as stated above by us. It is also a fact that purchase and sale of the transactions have been transacted through banking channel and shares were purchased and sold through Bombay Stock Exchange and the Assessee also kept the share for a period more than one year. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it goes to show the Assessee has been able to discharge its onus cast upon u/s 68 of the Act and therefore no addition u/s 68 of the Act is warranted. Further, the Assessee by producing the relevant documents such as books of accounts, bank statement, contract notes of shares, broker ledger account and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the shares of the alleged penny stock of shares of Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. ("RFL") is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax ("STT") has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL 3. Therefore, we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Walve placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. 2019 (103) taxmann.com 48 (SC). but that does not help the revenue in as much as the facts in that case were entirely different. 5. In our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied Incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial questio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Benches and other Benches has allowed relief to the asses- see by placing reliance on the evidence filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. I do not find any adversity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) specifically keeping in view the fact that the Lucknow Benches in a number of cases after relying on the judgment of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Krishna Devi had allowed relief to various assessees." The concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the first appellate authority and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Thus, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. The matter is concluded by findings of fact. For the reasons aforestated, we do not find any good reason to entertain this appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed." 5.4 We further observe that the Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Mumbai in the case of Kamlesh Gupta vs. DCIT 1462/M/2020 has also dealt with the identical scrip as involved in the instant case and ultimately in the similar facts and circumstances as involved in the instant case deleted the identical addition by holding as under: "13. We, thus, in the backdrop of our afor....