TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 1644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. As per computation of income, the Assessee during the assessment year under consideration by filing his return of income had declared its total income at Rs.8,46,291/- by claiming the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.49,51,845/- qua sale of shares of M/s. Karma Ispat, as exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. 2.1 Subsequently, on the basis of investigation carried out into 84 penny stocks including M/s. Karma Ispat, by the Kolkata Investigation Directorate, the case of the Assessee was also reopened by recording reasons u/s 147 of the Act and consequently notice dated 12.09.2016 u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 of the Act was issued to the Assessee. 2.2 In re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y filing its reply dated 11.12.2017 claimed that the transactions were done through Bombay Stock Exchange and STT was paid and the transactions are reflected in D-Mat account, so the question of bogus LTCG does not arise. 2.5 The AO though considered the reply of the Assessee, however, not found acceptable mainly on the reason that the Assessee do not have any knowledge of penny stock company, despite poor fundamentals of company why the Assessee has bought this penny stock source, the Assessee has not furnished any basis of information and documentary evidence for getting reasonable chances of good return therefore his contention is ambiguous and not believable. 2.6 The AO ultimately by considering the mode of acquisition of the, sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....statement produced by the Assessee and further dematerialize the same and after keeping more than a year sold the same through online platform itself i.e. Bombay Stock Exchange. It is also not in controversy that the Assessee has duly filed the relevant document such as purchase bills, bank statements, D-mat account statements, sales bills, ledger of broker etc. in order to substantiate its claim. The AO admittedly did not raise any doubt on the documents submitted by the Assessee. The doubt of the AO shrouded on the investigation wing record and lack of Assessee's knowledge qua shares. In our considered view, lack of knowledge of shares cannot be a sole factor for declining the claim u/s 10(38) of the Act, as well as doubting the transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 RFI. The CITIA] came to the conclusion that respondent brought 3000 shares of RFI, 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 account has been debited. The shares were also transferred into respondent's Demat account where it remained for more tha....