TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Traders. We direct the deletion of addition made on account of Long Term Capital Gains and expenditure incurred on account of the same in the hands of the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 1172 And 1173/Chd/2019 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2022 - Shri. N.K.Saini, VP And Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM For the Assessee : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA And Shri Bhavesh Jindal, CA For the Revenue : Shri Sarabjeet Singh, CIT, DR ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the common order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 07/06/2019. 2. Since the issues involved are common and the appeals pertaining to the same assessee were heard together, so these are being diposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Grounds raised in ITA No. 1172/Chd/2019 for the A.Y. 2014-15 read as under: 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 justified to uphold the addition of ₹ 21,93,371/- on account of long-term capi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts has already been adjudicated by the ITAT Chandigarh Bench A , Chandigarh in the case of Anjula Goel Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 1174 1175/Chd/2019 for the A.Y. 2015-16 2016-17. It was pointed out that he said assessee also belongs to the same group i.e; M/s Om Sons and was coverd under the same search to which the present assessee is covered. He furnished the copy of the order dt. 12/03/2021 passed by the ITAT in the case of Anjula Goel Vs. DCIT (supra) and submitted that the firm M/s Rohit Traders made the surrender and settled the issue before the Settlement Commission, the assessee and Anjula Goel are partners in the said firm M/s Rohit Traders and that the amount surrendered therein was utilized by the partners to earn the LTCG. Therefore no separate addition is called for in the hands of the present assessee for the same reasoning as was held in the case of Anjula Goel Vs. DCIT(supra). 8. In his rival submissions the Ld. CIT DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and drew our attention towards page no. 40 of the impugned order wherein it is mentioned that the Income Tax Settlement Commission in their order made the following observations: It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out of its undisclosed income which was thus being surrendered. The contents of the same are reproduced hereunder: 1) AMOUNTS ADVANCED TO PARTNER During the course of A/Ys 2014-15, Ms.Anjila Goel, a Partner of the Appellant Firm, while filing her income tax 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 31,10,857/- 2015-16 17,89,989/- Total 47,70,846/- 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 ₹ 49,70,846/- as additional income vide the present St, of Facts. Also, an amount @ 2% of ₹ 49,70,846/- i.e.. ₹ 99,417/- towards facil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the proceedings u/s 147 are for the benefit of the revenue and not for benefit of the assessee. Applying the same principle, proceedings u/s 153A cannot be construed to be for the benefit of assessee, so as to file a return on reduced income, by excluding income which has already been shown in the return filed suo moto and taxes paid on the said income, as in the case of the appellant. The surrender offered on behalf of the appellant has in fact been incorporated in the return filed by 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 ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
