Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 208 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition u/s 68 - Bogus LTCG - disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed u/s 10(38) by treating the share transaction as non-genuine - HELD THAT:- Revenue has failed to prove with any cogent evidence on record that the assessee was involved in converting its unaccounted money into long-term capital gains by conniving with any entry operator/exit operator, who was involved in artificial price rigging of shares. Thus this is the case wherein the AO merely on the basis of suspicion rejected the claim of the assessee, without establishing any link between the assessee with the entry operators/exit operators, who were allegedly involved in price rigging of shares. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the conclusion reached by the Revenue on the basis of the findings recorded in the order passed by the lower authorities. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition made u/s 68 and accept the plea of the assessee in respect of long-term capital gains earned during the year. Since the main transaction has not been found to be bogus, the addition on account of commission @ 3% made by the AO and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is also deleted. Decided in favour of assessee. Unexplained investment - addition u/s 69 - purchase of shares of M/s Rutron International Ltd. - HELD THAT:- Since the assessee has not sold any shares of M/s.Rutron International Ltd., the question of long-term capital gains/short-term capital loss does not arise. As evident from the record that the assessee in order to substantiate the purchase transaction submitted that the sale consideration was paid through normal banking channel and the shares are held in the Demat account. It is pertinent to note that only when the investment is not recorded in the books of accounts or the explanation by the assessee regarding the nature and source of the investment is found to be not satisfactory, the value of the investment can be treated as an unexplained investment u/s 69 - However, in the present case, no such allegation has been raised by the Revenue. Thus the addition made by treating the purchase consideration as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act has no basis and accordingly is directed to be deleted.
|