TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., Ms. Jyoti Sharma Ms. Devina Sharma, Advocates For the Respondent : Sh. V.K. Jiwani, SR. DR ORDER The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 27.9.2017 of the Ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2014-15 and raised the following grounds:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of an amount of ₹ 31,10,915/- made by AO holding the sale proceeds of the shares, to be not genuine.2 3.(i) That the addition has been confirmed despite the same having been made grossly indulging in conjecture and surmises without there being any direct adverse material against the assessee, based only on suspicion. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed despite the assessee bringing on record all evidences and material to prove the genuineness of the transaction. (iii) That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition despite the transaction having been done through proper bankin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led questionnaire were issued and served for various relevant details and documents. In response to the said notices, the AR of the assessee attended the proceedings. The assessee is an individual and during the relevant year, assessee has filed return declaring income under the head of Business Income being proprietor of M/s NK Hardware Stores in which income has been declared u/s. 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Long Term Capital Gains being exempt u/s. 10(38), Short Term Capital Gains on sale of shares, interest income and bank interest income as income from other sources. The issue involved in this case is addition of ₹ 31,10,915/- made by the AO holding that the long term capital gain earned by the assessee on its investments in the shares of HPC Biosciences Ltd. is not genuine and represents unaccounted income brought in the books of accounts by arranging bogus long term capital gain. In this regard, the AO has relied upon the various judgments and assessed the income at ₹ 39,51,150/- u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2016. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO holding that the transaction is against human probability. In this rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition to ₹ 31,10,915/- by holding that sale proceeds of the shares, to be not genuine and ₹ 1,55,546/- on account of commission @ 5% which does not need any interference and need to be upheld. 6. I have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records available with me, especially the orders of the revenue authorities and the case law cited by the assessee s counsel on the issue in dispute relating to addition made on account of LTCG by treating the same as income from other sources. In this case the assessee has shown LTCG from sale of 6000 shares of M/s HPC Biosciences Limited and the same has been claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. The AO rejected all the claims made by the assessee and not allowed the claim of the assessee in respect of Long Term Capital Gains on sale of listed equity shares through recognized Stock Exchange after payment u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the assessee has submitted all documentary evidences in support of sale and purchase of shares. However, the entire transaction is through Banking channel and the rejection by the AO as well as CIT(A) as bogus long term capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon ble ITAT has erred in ignoring an important aspect that in such cases of sham transactions of shares showing abnormal hike in their value, where the facts themselves speak loud and clear, the AO is justified to even draw an inference from the attendant circumstances? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 12,59,000/- made by the AO on the basis of seized document on the grounds that the AO has not pointed out as to how the figures of ₹ 12.59 lacs has been worked out ignoring the fact that the assessee himself in his reply to the AO had tried to explain the source of the receipts of ₹ 12,59,000/- instead of challenging the working out of the said figure by the AO? 3. The first three questions of law raised in this appeal are covered against the appellant by an order and judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 16.02.2017 in ITA-18-2017 titled as The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana vs. Sh. Hitesh Gandhi, Bhatti Colony, Chandigarh Road, Nawanshahar. 4. The issue in short is this : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
