TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order has been passed. From the above it is seen that matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh decision - Assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.1584/Bang/2019, ITA No.1585/Bang/2019, ITA No.1586/Bang/2019 - - - Dated:- 18-11-2020 - Shri George George K, Judicial Member For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department ORDER These appeals at the instance of various assessee s are directed against three orders of the CIT(A), all dated 15.05.2019. The relevant assessment year is 2015-2016. Common issue is raised in these appeals, hence they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... financials of KAFL, Investigation Wing report and the findings of the SEBI. The A.O. held that KAFL was one of the companies which were investigated by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata in relation to bogus LTCG and Short Term Capital Losses (STCL) entries being provided to various persons by accommodation entry operators. The A.O. discussed in detail the modus operandi of providing accommodation entry by the entry operators as well as the findings of the Investigation Wing in relation to KAFL scrip price rigging. The Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had entered into engineered transaction to generate artificial long term capital gains. Accordingly, the A.O. held that the sale consideration of ₹ 20,99,260 (t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shares as a bogus transaction (c) Rejecting the application of Section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (d) Passing the order without demonstrating that the Appellant did not have motive of tax evasion. Grounds relating to Long Term Capital Gains (a) The lower authorities have erred in claiming ₹ 20,99,260/- as an unexplained transaction under Section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of sale of long - term shares of a listed entity. There has been no unexplained credit and the explanation with respect to the credited amount has been provided, thus making the addition u/s 68 completely erroneous and liable to be deleted. (b) The lower authorities have also erred in not granting the exemption from transfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the law. Appellant prays accordingly. 7. None was present on behalf of the assessee. The learned Standing Counsel present on behalf of the Department submitted that in similar kind of cases, the Tribunal has restored the matter to the A.O. for de novo consideration. The learned Standing Counsel placed on record the Tribunal orders, wherein identical facts were considered. The details of the Tribunal s order are as follows: (i) Shri Manoj Kumar Sipani Ors. v. ITO [ITA No.1316/Bang/2019 Ors order dated 03.09.2020] (ii) Shri Kirti K.Bhansali v. ITO [ITA No.105/Bang/2019 order dated 24.05.2019] 8. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel and perused the material on record. The case was posted on several occasion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be no difference in facts and therefore by respectfully following this judgment in the case of Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra), I set aside the impugned orders of learned CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2008-09 and restore the matters to the file of the AO for fresh decision with the same directions as were issued by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case as per Para No.8 of the judgment reproduced above. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for at this stage regarding the merits of the addition. 8.1 In view of the above order of the Tribunal, I remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh with similar directions as held by the Tribunal in the case of Shri.Kirti K.Bhansali (supra). I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
