Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2023 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 396 - ITAT AHMEDABADBogus LTCG - assessee makes sale of shares of a company having no financial standing/base i.e. a penny stock company - HELD THAT:- AO has not doubted the purchase of shares were through banking channels. The assessee has placed on record copies of contract memos in connection with purchase and sale of shares. Besides the above shares, the assessee has also held shares of 84 other companies as well. In the present case, no material has been brought on record to suggest that assessee was involved in any price rigging and not has the case of assessee mentioned in the list of beneficiaries, by the persons whose statements were recorded. In the statements recorded, the name of the assessee as a beneficiary was not specifically mentioned this fact was also specifically taken noted by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu Aggarwal [2023 (7) TMI 288 - SC ORDER] AO has not brought any material to support his finding that there has been collusion or connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of his own unaccounted money. In the present case, despite the assessee’s specific request, no opportunity of cross examination was provided to the assessee on the basis of whose statements reliance has been placed to hold that the sale of shares was sham / bogus. ITAT Kolkata and ITAT Mumbai with respect to the very same stock i.e. M/s Global Infratech and Finance Ltd. in three separate judgments (Mukesh Sharma [2019 (5) TMI 1845 - ITAT MUMBAI], Kaushalya Agarwal [2019 (6) TMI 297 - ITAT KOLKATA] and Mangilal Jain [2019 (5) TMI 1694 - ITAT KOLKATA]) have decided the issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the assessee was not engaged in bogus purchase and sale of shares. Accordingly, looking at decisions were rendered with respect to the same stock i.e. Global Infratech and Finance Ltd. which the assessee had sold during the impugned assessment year, and the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Renu Aggarwal [2023 (7) TMI 288 - SC ORDER] we are of the considered view the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in allowing the appeal of the assessee. Unexplained expenses - CIT(Appeals) directed the AO to compute the addition on account of unexplained expenses and unexplained receipt pertaining to the year under consideration on pro rata basis - HELD THAT:- we observe that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has given a detailed basis of partially allowing the appeal of the assessee, and, the Ld. DR has not pointed out to any specific infirmity/factual inaccuracy in the observations made by Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the appellate order. Accordingly, looking into the facts of the instant case, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(Appeals) has not erred in facts and in law in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee, after taking into consideration the facts of the case. Decided against revenue.
|