TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, for the parity of reasons, addition made under section 68 of the Act deserves to be deleted. Further, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the benefit of section 10(38) of the Act to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA NO.4369/MUM/2018 - - - Dated:- 20-7-2020 - Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member And Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Devendra Jain For the Respondent : None ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3 Nasik (in short the CIT (A) ) dated 20/04/2018 for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee in appeal has raised following grounds:- (1) In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action of the Assessing Officer of treating the transaction of sale of shares of M/s. Sunshine Asian Ltd. as income from undisclosed sources and making addition under section 68 of the Act for the amount credited in bank account. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. Shri Devendra Jain appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assesse/appellant is trader in shares. During the period relevant to the assessment year under appeal the assessee sold shares of M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited for a total consideration of ₹ 14,99,917/-. The aforesaid amount was directly credited to the bank account of the assessee. The long term capital gain on sale of sha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee are identical. Drawing parity between both the cases, the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that:- (a) the transactions of sale of shares are in same assessment year; (b) the issue involved in both the appeals is denial of exemption under section 10(38) and addition made under section 68 of the Act; (c) the scripts transacted in both the cases is same i.e. M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd.; (d) the modus operandi of dealing in scripts and the evidences furnished with respect to acquisition and sale of shares are similar; (e) in fact the shares in question were jointly purchased by the assesse and Narayan R. Rathi; and (f) the grounds of appeal raised in both the appeals are identical. 4. On the other h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of the shares in question. Further, the authorities below have not pointed out any evidence on record to hold that the assessee has obtained bogus entries in connivance with entry operators and brokers etc., in order to claim bogus LTCG. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon and on the basis of their statements it was concluded that the transaction in question was a part of penny stock scam. So, in view of the cases discussed in the foregoing paras, particularly the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries (supra), we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
