9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 (1) of the Act was carried out on 10 - 03 - 2016 on the business and residential premises of M/s Om Sons Group of cases, which included the assessee. In response to notice issued u/s 153 A of the Act, the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 6,43, 630 /- after claiming deduction u/s 80 C of the Act of Rs. 1,60, 000 /-. Subsequently assessment was framed making the following additions/disallowances: 1) alleged bogus long term capital gains u/s 68 of the Act Rs. 17,19 989 /- 2) Commission paid for the above accommodation entry Rs. 1,34,027 /- 3) Denial of deduction of interest paid on housing loan u/s 24 of the Act Rs. 2,00,000 /- 4) denial of deduction claimed u/s 80 C of the Act Rs. 1, 60,000 /- 4. The assessee went in appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who upheld all the additions made and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the same the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising the following grounds: "1. That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penny stock i.e M/s Cressanda Solutions Limited. The AO noted that the Investigation Wing Kolkata had carried out Survey operation u/s 133 A of the Act in case of M/ s Manu Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd. on 19. 04. 2015, wherein statement of Shri Ritesh Jain was recorded in which he stated that Shri Ajit Tulsian and Shri Deepak Patwari were the promoters of M/s Cresanda Solutions Ltd and they were involved in providing entries on the basis of commission. During the course of search, the facts with regard to bogus LTCG were confronted to the assessee. All the persons of the group authorized Shri Sunil Goel for giving reply with respect to the Long Term Capital Gains shown from the script, M/s Cresenda Solutions. During the course of search operation, statement of Shri Sushil Goel S/o Shri Om Prakash Goel was recorded u/s 132 (4) of the Act, wherein he admitted that he and his family members had received bogus capital gains from M/s Smart Champ IT & Infra P. Ltd. which was now merged with M/s Cressanda Solutions Ltd. In the statement, admission was made of unaccounted income to the tune of Rs. 4. 20 crores on account of Long Term Capital Gains in the names of Sh. Goel and his family member ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return, declared exempt income u/ s 10(38), on account of " Long Term Capital Gains" on shares in the following manner:- Assessment Year Amount (Rs) 2014- 15 31,80,857/- 2015- 16 17,89,989/- Total 49,70,846/- Fact of the matter is that the above- mentioned income merely represents accommodation entries obtained by the said partner. However, all the funds required for obtaining these entries was provided by the applicant firm to its Partner and also represents undisclosed income earned by it. As such, the applicant firm is offering the above- mentioned amount of Rs. 49, 70, 846/- as additional income vide the present St, of Facts. Also, an amount @ 2% of Rs. 49,70, 846/- i.e.. Rs. 99, 417 /- towards facilitation charges is also being surrendered as additional income vide the present Statement of Facts." 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that application for settlement in the case of M/s Rohit Traders had been accepted by the Settlement Commission vide its order passed u/ s 245 A(4) of the Act, therefore, clearly the impugned Long Term Capital Gains allegedly relating to the assessee had already stood disclosed and taxed in the hands of M/s Rohit Traders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant after recording of statement. With regard to addition on account of bogus entries with regard to LTCG on penny stocks, the AO has discussed the issue in detail in the assessment order and hence not reiterated. In view of the above discussion, addition of Rs. 21,93,371/- on account of LTCG in the case of appellant is confirmed. As similar, issue is involved in the case of appellant for AY 2015-16 and Smt. Anjula Goel for AY 2015-16, the addition made in these cases is also confirmed. 13. We have heard both the parties. We have also perused the documents referred to before us. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the impugned capital gains had already been surrendered in the hands of M/s Rohit Traders, a partnership firm of the assessee, before the Settlement Commission which stood accepted. That therefore there was no question of taxing it again in the hands of the assessee. 14. We have perused the contents of the statement of facts filed before the Settlement Commission in the case of M/s Rohit Traders and find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Undoubtedly the impugned long term capital gain of the assessee of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest were also being paid by the assessee. That all these facts had been consistently ignored by the authorities below and deduction denied merely because as per interest certificate loan was sanctioned to the husband of the assessee. He further contended that even a certificate from the concerned bank, i. e SBI had been filed, clarifying that the lease was in the joint name of the assessee and her husband. 19. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee contended before us that all the necessary evidences had been filed both before the AO and even the appellate authorities. He drew our attention to the following documents filed in the Paper Book as under: 1. Copy of computation chart in support of deduction u/ s 24. 80C and 80TTA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Bank certificate in support of housing loan by the appellant as co- owner filed before the ld. CIT(A) vide submissions dated 25.01. 2019. 3. Copy of housing loan statement and ledger account showing the payment of interest and principal amount to bank. 4. Copy of Sale Deed in support of the fact that house was purchased jointly by the appellant and her husband Sh.Rakesh Goel. 20. He, therefore, pleaded that the impugned dedu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. 26. As for the claim of deduction u/s 80 TTA of the Act relating to interest earned on saving, the same was also denied for lack of evidence. But the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that while the interest earned on savings bank returned by the assessee stands accepted as such,(reflected in the computation of income at P. B 35 - 37) the deduction claimed on account of the same has been denied. 27. We find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. Undoubtedly the assessee has claimed deduction of savings bank interest which has been shown as income of the assessee. This income returned is not disputed by the Revenue, therefore, we fail to understand the logic for denial of deduction of the same income. 28. Accordingly we allow the claim of the assessee to deduction u/s 80 TTA of the Act of interest earned on savings bank account. 29. In view of the above, the AO is directed to allow the claim of the assessee u/s 24 of Rs. 2, 00,000 /-, u/s 80 C of Rs. 1, 50, 000 /- and u/s 80 TTA of the Act of Rs. 10, 000 /-. Ground No.6 and 7 stand allowed accordingly. 30. Ground No. 8 raised by the assessee is general and, therefore, needs to adjudication. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
