TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been filed by the assessee in the capacity of HUF as well as Individual against the respective orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-13, New Delhi dated 17.12.2018 14.12.2018 respectively. Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order by first dealing with ITA No. 1508/Del/2019 (AY 2014-15) and the decision thereof will apply mutatis mutandis to other ITA No. 1509/Del/2019 (AY 2014-15). 2. The grounds raised in ITA No. 1508/Del/2019 (AY 2014-15) Narender Aggarwal (HUF) vs. ITO read as under:- 1.That the order of CIT(A) U/S 250 of the Act is bad in law and on facts of the assessee's case. 2.That Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law in confirming the addition made by the AO on account of long term capital gain of ₹ 21,05,853/- earned by the assessee on sale of shares of Mis. KappacPharma Ltd. and treated the same as bogus and is taxable as unexplained cash credit U/S 68 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act. 3.That the Ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer has grossly erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing shares in many other companies, apart from M/s. Kappac Pharma Ltd. 11. That no evidence has been brought on record of the Hon'ble CIT(A)/Assessing Officer which conveys that assessee was involved in converting its unaccounted money through the route of exempt capital gains. The Order is prayed to be declared as null and void. 12. That the references made by the Ld. AO in his order to the modus operandi adopted by the certain unrelated concerns/persons and further upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) has no connection or relevance to the facts of the assessee's case and the same are prayed to be expunged. 13. That the findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer in their Orders regarding penny stock is based on conjectures, surmises and imagination and are prayed to be held as legally untenable. 14. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law by not appreciating the judgements on which the assessee relied upon and not distinguished the facts of the assessee's case with these judgements. Thus, prayed to be applied on the assessee's case. 15. That the reliance of the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h findings are contrary to evidences filed by the assessee. 4. That the findings and allegations made by the Ld. CIT(A)/AO by relying on the outcome of alleged investigations made by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department in Kolkata and observation of NSE/SEBI/SIT are based on surmises conjectures and imagination without any live link with the transactions of the assessee. 5. That additions made by AD and upheld by Ld. CIT(A) based on certain facts within the knowledge of the AO, without any involvement of the assesse are bad in law and are prayed to be deleted. 6. That the findings and allegations made by the Ld. AO further upheld by Ld. CIT(A)in his order are based on no evidence against the assessee and are totally unsubstantiated and has no evidentiary value against the assessee. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A)/Assessing Officer failed to consider the evidences filed by the assessee in connection with earning of exempt long term capital gain and proceeded with a pre-conceived mind to make the addition U/S 68 r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act. 8. That the Ld. AO has passed the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n treating the transaction of sale of shares of Kappac Pharma Ltd. as in genuine although the transaction of purchase of such shares was already accepted by the Ld. AO in earlier years. 17. That the charging of interest U/S 234 Band 234C of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and is prayed to be deleted. 18. That the penalty proceedings initiated U/S 271(1)(c) are on wholly illegal and untenable grounds since there was submission of inaccurate particulars of income, by the assessee. 19. That the aforesaid grounds are without prejudice to the one another raised herein. Prayer The appellant-assessee prays that the relief as per grounds of appeal above may kindly be allowed to it and the appellant may also be allowed to add, delete, amend or substitute any ground(s) of appeal either at or before the date of hearing. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Sr. DR stated that the issue regarding the shares of M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. has been adjudicated and decided by the ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of Udit Kalra vs. ITO decided in ITA No. 6717/Del/2017 on 08.1.2019 in favour of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the genuineness of the same has already been examined by the ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of Udit Kalra (Supra) and find that M/s Kappac Pharma Ltd. has been de-listed from the Stock Exchange and is suspicious and was denied the exemption u/s. 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by treating the accommodation entries as bogus. As regards the other legal issues raised in the grounds of appeal, I am of the considered view that Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Udit Kalra vs. ITO (Supra) has not given weightage to these legal grounds because when M/s Kappac Pharma has already been declared as bogus and it made to provide the accommodation entries in which the present assessee is a beneficiary, then the assessee is not entitled for getting benefit in such technical/legal grounds. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Delhi decided in the case of Udit Kalra vs. ITO (Supra) is reproduced as under:- The assessee is aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the tax authorities - including the lower appellate authorities rejecting its claim for a long term capital gain reported by it, to the tune of ₹ 13,33,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
