TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 1510
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Departmental Representative ("learned DR") and based on the material available on record. 3. Since these appeals pertain to the same assessee arising from common impugned order and the issues involved are also identical, therefore, as a matter of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off by way of this consolidated order. 4. In all these appeals, the common grievance of the assessee is against the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains under section 10(38) by treating the share transaction as non-genuine and making the addition under section 68 of the Act. Further, in these appeals, the assessee is also aggrieved against addition on account of commission alleged to have been paid on such share transactions. Since similar grounds have been raised in all 3 appeals, except with variance in figures and name of scrip in which the assessee has dealt, therefore, grounds of appeal raised in the appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 are reproduced hereunder for the sake of reference: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding addition of Rs. 3,18,36,057/- to the ret....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 148 of the Act was issued for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer, vide separate assessment order passed under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15, after considering the information received from the Investigation Wing and analysis of scrips in which the assessee had traded, the financial position of the companies, the information from BSE data came to the conclusion that trading transaction of purchase and sale of shares are not being effected for commercial purpose, but to create artificial gains. The Assessing Officer further held that the prices of the shares were determined artificially by manipulation and cannot be a product of market factors and commercial principles. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of exemption of long-term capital gain under section 10(38) of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee under section 68 of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer also made an addition @ 3% of the total amount of long-term capital gains claimed by the assessee as commission paid to the entry operator under section 69C of the Act. In the assessment year 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... per share to Rs. 455 per share within a period of four months, the Assessing Officer at Page-4 & 5 of the assessment order for the assessment year 2013-14 noted that the financial worth of the company is not significant. Further, upon perusal of the financials, the Assessing Officer observed the financial condition and razor-thin profits earned by the company in the recent past. The Assessing Officer also noted that the key person of the exit provider entity i.e., M/s Comfort Securities Ltd., during the search operation conducted on his group has accepted his key role in providing accommodation entry of long term capital gain / short term capital loss in scrips of various companies including Sunrise Asian Ltd. We find that the learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, duly taken into consideration the final order dated 06/09/2021, passed by the SEBI in the case of Sunrise Asian Ltd., and its operators. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, which is widely quoted in the impugned order by the learned CIT(A), we find that the SEBI found the manipulative trade executed by Sunrise Asian Ltd., as well as Acute Consultancy Ltd., from whom these shares were purchased by the assessee from op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....period of holding of these shares source of fund and return of income. However, replies from a few purchasers were received and most of the notices were returned unserved by the postal authorities. It is pertinent to note that in one of the replies received, as noted in the assessment order, the purchaser stated that they do not have any transactions with the assessee of any kind during the year under consideration and do not have any business and relation with the assessee and the purchaser further stated that his PAN is wrongly used by the assessee. In another reply from another purchaser, it was mentioned that there was no transaction with the assessee. From the perusal of the order dated 20/01/2017, passed by the SEBI under section 11(11)(4) and 11B of the Act of 1992, in the case of M/s. Radford Global Ltd., we find that initially vide interim orders, the SEBI restrained 123 entities from accessing the securities market and buying/selling or dealing in securities either directly or indirectly. From the perusal of the list of 123 entities on internal pages no. 2 to 6 of aforesaid SEBI's order, we find that the assessee was also one of the entities at sr. no. 44, of the said lis....