2019 (3) TMI 1590 - ITAT KOLKATA

Bogus LTCG - Addition u/s. 68 - penny stock - benami transactions - sale proceeds of equity shares - exemption u/s10(38) denied - HELD THAT:- There can hardly be any dispute that assessee have placed on record their identical paper book(s) comprising of relevant purchased bills of shares, allotment, certified copies, contract notes, brokerage details etc. As put up a specific query as to whether any of entry operators searched or survey has quoted these assessee's names or not before the Departmental Authorities. There is no such material in the case file indicating search as statement. I find that this co-ordinate bench’s decision in Smt. Sangita Jhunjhunwala vs. ITO [2019 (1) TMI 298 - ITAT KOLKATA] has deleted similar bogus LTCG

Coming to brokers statement recorded in presence of the assessee find that the said broker nowhere supported the Revenue’s case alleging any cash component in the relevant transactions. So is the outcome of Revenue’s latter appeals alleging assessees’ concession as the Assessing Officer took recourse to a detailed adjudication in support of the impugned addition(s).

This tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s decision in Canara Bank vs. JCIT [2017 (11) TMI 1425 - ITAT BANGALORE] holds that the estopple principle does not apply in income tax proceedings. I therefore reject Revenue’s arguments in support of impugned addition(s) - Decided in favour of assessee.