TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1039
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 41, MUMBAI (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') erred in confirming the addition made to the extent of Rs. 73,06,532/- u/s. 68 of the IT Act as unexplained credit as against long term capital gain shown by the appellant on sale of shares of Rs. 73,06,532/- u/s. 10(38). The appellant being aggrieved, therefore prays that the addition u/s. 68 Rs. 73,06,532/- is unwanted, unwarranted, illegal, bad-in-law and hence be deleted. GROUND III On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 41, MUMBAI (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) has erred in not allowing the set off of the carried forward business loss of Rs. 61,04,247/- u/s. 72 as claimed by the appellant. The appellant submits that on facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the law, entire business loss of Rs. 61,04,247/- disclosed in the return of income and prima facie accepted in the assessment framed u/s. 143(3) ought to have been set off against the income under the other heads of income (including addition made u/s. 68 and for 69) as per the mandated circular no: 11/2019 dated 19.06.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apital gains, as commission paid to the entry operator under section 69 of the Act. 4. In the appeal before the learned CIT(A), despite various notices being issued, there was neither any compliance on behalf of the assessee nor any reply/submission filed on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 06/12/2019, the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the basis of material available on record. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Ground No. 1 raised in assessee‟s appeal was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the said ground is dismissed as not pressed. 6. In ground No. 2, the grievance of the assessee is against the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section 10(38) by treating the share transaction as non-genuine and making the addition under section 68 of the Act. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee acquired 15,000 shares of Conart Traders Ltd for a consideration of Rs. 3 lakhs in physical form. Thereafter, Conart Traders Ltd and Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd amalgamated with Sunrise Asian Ltd and the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and thus there has been a rise of 803% in price of shares without any corporate announcement regarding any major investment or acquisition. Further, the AO observed that no significant changes have been made by the company during this period in order to warrant such a phenomenal price rise. Thus, the reported profits were not commensurate with the price rise. The AO also observed that after the shares have been purchased and the long-term capital gain transaction is complete, the price of the scrip decreased drastically from the closing price of Rs.447.8 in 2014 to Rs.62.2 in 2015 and Rs.3.97 in 2016. Accordingly, the AO observed that Sunrise Asian Ltd is just a shell company, which has been used to convert the unaccounted money of the beneficiaries into accounted one by channelising it in such a way that outwardly all transactions appear seemingly normal, proper, and genuine. 9. The AO also referred to the search and seizure operation carried out by the Investigation Wing, Mumbai on Mr. Vipul Bhat who was a key person controlling and managing the affairs in the case of Sunrise Asian, Conart Traders Ltd as well as Santoshima Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. The AO also took into consideratio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otherwise deal in the securities market, either directly or indirectly or be associated with the securities market in any manner for a period of 6 months to one year. Further, we find that the SEBI found the manipulative trade executed by Sunrise Asian Ltd., as well as the entities to whom these shares were sold by the assessee. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that just because the assessee was not part of the investigation conducted by SEBI, the same does not absolve him from proving the genuineness of the transaction in shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. under section 68 of the Act. 11. It is also the plea of the assessee that the payment for the acquisition of shares was made from the bank account and the shares were dematerialised and credited to the Demat account maintained by the assessee with HDFC Bank Ltd. It was further the submission of the assessee that during the year, the assessee sold the shares through the broker on BSE. In this regard, the assessee furnished the contract note of the broker and bank passbook evidencing the receipt of the sale consideration of shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd through account payee checks. However, as noted above....