TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6-17. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, the appeal of the assessee is being decided after hearing the ld. Sr. DR and on the basis of material available on record. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1 On the fact and circumstances of the case the learned CIT Appeal- NFAC has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 80,17,339 representing Long Term Capital Gain, treating the same as Bogus Capital Gain. The AO has never linked transactions of the assessee to any scam related to bogus LTCG, as alleged in the light of the investigation carried out by the Directorate of Investigation. The AO has failed to appreciate that all the conditions required for claiming exemption u/s 10(38) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s such the addition so made is bad in law and it may be held accordingly. 4. For that in view of the facts and in the circumstances the AO is wholly unjustified in charging interest u/s 234B & 234D at Rs. Rs. 17,83,656/- & Rs. 1,64,753 respectively 4. Brief facts of the case: The assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 12.10.2016 declaring total income at Rs. 9,71,140/-. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer received an information from the DDIT (Investigation), Unit-3(3) New Delhi, that the assessee is one of the beneficiary of obtaining accommodation entries of bogus long term capital gain in respect of sale of share of M/s Yamini Investments Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to 'YICL') listed in Bombay Stock ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., the assessee was allotted share of YICL, due to amalgamation of FPIL with YICL, the shares price of YICL was Rs. 57. The Assessing Officer noted that the no justification was explained by the assessee as to how the shares of a high priced company were offered to the assessee in exchange for shares of low priced company. The Assessing Officer noted the fact about the amalgamation of M/s FPIL and M/s YICL, approved by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court but observed that such approval cannot be extended to the genuineness or otherwise of Long Term Capital Gains generated by the assessee long after such approval. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee did not explain the reasons for investing in this particular share and no evidence was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s regard, the factual finding of the Assessing Officer in para 8 to 12 of the assessment order is reproduced as under:- "8. The assessee originally invested in 2,50,000 shares of M/s Fidelo Power and Infrastructure Limited in FY 2013-14. These shares were transferred in the name of the assessee on 19/2/2014. Subsequently, the Fidelo Power And Infrastructure Limited got merged with a listed company M/s Yamini Investment Company Limited (YAMINI. As per scheme of arrangement ( merger of M/s Fidelo Power & Infrastructure Ltd., & M/s Anax Com Trade Limited with M/s Yamini Investments Company Limited) approved by the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay, the shareholder of FIDELO got the shares of YAMINI in the ratio of 5:4 i.e., for 2,50,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elhi has approved the Scheme of amalgamation of M/s Fidelo Power and Infrastructure Limited and M/s Yamini Investments Company Limited, the LTCG generated by the assessee cannot be accepted as genuine 11. Though the High Court of Delhi has approved the Scheme of amalgamation of M/s Fidelo Power and Infrastructure Limited and M/s Yamini Investments Company Limited, such approval cannot be extended to the genuineness or otherwise of the LTCG generated by the assessee long after such approval. 12. From the above discussion, it is clear that the assessee purchased/ got the allotment of shares in FPIL through preferential allotment which is one of the two methods of initially buying shares for later generation of bogus LTCG. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as to how the share price went up 33 times in short span of time. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the documents are to create an illusion that the transaction is not bogus. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the documentary evidence filed does not support the contention of the assessee that the transaction genuine. Hence, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the materials available on record. The factual finding of the Assessing Officer as noted in para 8 to 12 of this order, especially the initial allotment of the shares on 19.02.2014 in FPIL and the subsequent allotment on conversion of the said ....