TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1430
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 142(1) of the Act were issued. During the impugned assessment year, the assessee sold shares of Pearl Agriculture Ltd (PAL) and Pearl Electronics Ltd (PEL), total amount to Rs. 26,02,806/-. The assessee purchased 4,000 share of NGVL on 25/03/2011 with cost of Rs. 7,68,680/- on demerge of agricultural division and electronic division of NGVL into PAL and PEL. The shareholder of NGVL on 01/01/2013 received 2235 shares of PAL and 2271 shares of PEL in terms of scheme of arrangement sanctioned by Hon'ble Bombay High Court. During the scrutiny, the Ld.AO added the entire sale transaction of Rs. 26,02,806/- under section 68 of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) upheld the impugned assessment order. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The Ld.AR filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 125 which is kept on record. The relevant paragraphs of the submission of the Ld. AR are reproduced as below:- 1. The assessee is an individual and earns salary income, house property income, capital gains, dividend & interest etc. He is a regular investor in shares and during the year under appeal has earned capital gains in arou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 32-33] 56.79 shares for every 100 shares of NGVL (PB Page 29) 2271 shares of Rs10/- each (PB Page 30) 01.01.2013 Date of Sale Sold through Qty (Nos.) Sale Amt. (Rs.) Date of debit in Demat A/c LTCG 17.11.2014 (PB Page 35) Online sale through SEBI regd. Share broker M/s Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd 8400 [FV of Re.1/-] 10,35,756/- {@Rs.56 / 29 per share) 18.11.2014 (PB Page 37) 1037576/- 18.11.2014 (PB Page 36} Online sale through SEBI regd. Share broker M/s Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd 3950 [FV of Re.1/-] 2,20,963/- {@R.55/94 per share) 37) 19.11.2014 (PB Page 37) 220963/- Total 22350 12,58,539/- Shares of Pearl Electronics Sold Date of Sale Sold through Qty (Nos.) Sale Amt.(Rs.) Date of debit in Demat A/c LTCG 12.06.2014 (PB Page 50) Online sale through SEBI regd. Share broke JHP Securities (P) Ltd. 2271 [FV of Rs. 10/- J 13,44,267/- @Rs.591 /93 per share) 13.06.2014 (PB Page 51) 1344267/- 4. The assessee in the course of assessment proceedings, furnished following details to substantiate the above transactions: i.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one by Ld.AO under section 133(6) of the Act by notice dated 18/09/2017 and 17/11/2017. The Ld.AO noted that the said notice under section 133(6) of the Act are issued to the purchasers and the exit providers of the shares and calling of details of sales and purchases with the assessee during the year. But both the letters were returned unserved by the postal authorities. None of them filed any reply before the Ld.AO. The Ld.AR took a plea that the assessee had not cross verified on any of the said notices and even the Ld.AO had not allowed the assessee for further verification of the said investigation. 4. The Ld. DR argued and stands in favour of the orders of the revenue authorities. The Ld. DR specifically mentioned paras 4.11 and 4.12 of the impugned appellate order, which are extracted below: - 4.11 Reliance is also placed in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income tax v. Nand Kishore Agarwala*[2022] 143 taxmann.com 402 (Calcutta) wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata has again held that 'Where assessee had stage managed transactions of sale of shares with object to plough back his unaccounted income in form of fictitious long-term capital gains ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of PCIT-31, Mumbai vs Indravadan Jain, HUF, ITA No.454 of 2018, date of order 12/07/2023. The relevant paragraph 4 if reproduced as below: - "4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain and added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the addition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that the A.O. himself has stated that SEBI had conducted independent enquiry in the case of the said broker and in the scrip of RFL through whom respondent had made the said transaction and it was conclusively proved that it was the said broker who had inflated the price of the said scrip in RFL. The CIT[A] also did not find anything wrong in respondent doing only one transaction with the said broker in the scrip of RFL. The CIT[A] came to the conclusion that respondent brought 3000 shares of RFL, on the floor of Kolkata Stock Exchange through registered share broker. In pursuance of purchase of shares the said broker had raised invoice and purchase price was paid by cheque and respondent's bank....