9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l justice by not granting an opportunity to cross examine/confront the person on whose confession/statement or possession of material /evidence, they presumed that the share transaction is a bogus/sham transaction. The basic principles of natural justice have been violated. As regards addition of Rs.11,23,262 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C 4. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,23,262 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C pertaining to the alleged commission." 3. The issue raised in ground No.1 to 3 is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the addition of Rs.2,24,65,230 /- by Ld. CIT(A) which was made by the AO under section 68 of the Act by rejecting the claim of the assessee in respect of long term capital gain on sale of shares under section 10(38) of the Act. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 31.10.2015 declaring an income of Rs.13,97,910/- by claiming Rs.2,20,06,230/- as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain on sale of equity shares of M/s. Matra Kaushal Enterprises Ltd. (earlier known as M/s. Kaushalya Global Ltd.). The case of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act resulting into an addition of Rs.2,24,65,230/- to the income of the assessee in assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act, 1961 dated 21.12.2017. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee after taking into account the detail submitted by the assessee by observing and holding as under: "5.1.6 Final Conclusion In view of the elaborate discussion/analysis and conclusion of the A.O. in the Assessment order, the analysis of appellant's argument, principle laid down by the decision/judgements relied upon it is clear that the appellant has misutilized the provisions of section 10(38} of the Act. It is also clear that the appellant and individual whose main source of income is not dealing in shares and purchased shares of M/s. Kaushalya Global Ltd offline from a company which was also managed by the entry operator. The company M/s, Kaushaiya Global Ltd was subsequently merged with M/s. MatraKaushal Enterprise Limited and thereafter M/s. Matra Kaushal EnterpriseLtd has split the aforesaid shares into Rs.1/- per share and appellant w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. ( CIT v. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 SC (at pages 545, 547). Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, M.P. and Bhopal in 50 ITR 1 (SC) held that "it is well established that the Onus of proving the source of a sum of money found to have been received by the assessee is on him. If he disputes liability for tax, it is for him to show either that the receipt was not income or that if it was, it was exempt from taxation under the provisions of the Act. In the absence of such proof, the Income tax Officer is entitled to treat it as taxable income (A.Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax 34 ITR 807 SC). Since the whole arrangement has been conducted with active connivance of entry operator/broker, the A.O. is more than fairto estimate commission only @ 5% as unexplained expenditure totaling to Rs.11,23,262/-. In view of the above I, have no reasons to interfere with the conclusion of the A.O. Thus the addition of Rs.2,24,65,230/- as cash credit u/s.68 of the Act and addition of Rs.11,23,262/- u/s. 69C of the Act are upheld and grounds of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on u/s 10(38) of the Act. Therefore, the denial of claim of exemption made by the Ld. AO ignoring the relevant and factual documentary evidences filed by the appellant is absolutely improper and against the principle of natural justice and equity. 7.2. The ld AR, while referring to the assessment order, submits that none of the descriptions, allegations, observations, findings, statements reproduced etc in the impugned order of AO are relevant or having any cogent, collaborative, identifiable or clinching to the LTCG realized by the appellant. The ld AR submits that the appellant had never transacted with any operator or such intermediary in the process of carrying out investments and further that the alleged operators and their records do not in any manner mention any connection with appellant. The ld AR submits that the shares were duly allotted to the appellant and were recorded into the D-mat account upon such purchase/allotment. Shares were sold on BSE through regular registered brokers of assessee under screen based trading where the seller and buyer of shares are wholly unaware of the identity of the other person. STTs were paid at the time of sale of shares and proceeds we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounts to violation of principal of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. The whole basis of making the addition is third party statement without there being any tangible material. The ld. AR submits that it is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). The suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). 7.5. The ld AR submits that movement in prices of shares is governed by several factors without there being any nexus to the projects, projection etc and this fact gets clearly established if one refers to the present movement in shares of several companies. The Ld. AO has failed to establish any link to the process of rigging and manipulating of prices of shares in connivance with parties whose names are mentioned in the impugned assessment orders. 7.6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vested in these shares by making a payment through account payee cheques from the regular bank account of the assessee and were held in D-Mat account and after being held for more than 12 months these shares were sold through the recognized stock exchange through the registered brokers on 31.03.2015 at a total sale consideration of Rs.2,24,65,230/- thereby making a long term capital gain of Rs.2,20,06,230/-. Now the issue before us is whether the claim of the assessee under section 10(38) of the Act is correct or not. We also note that the company M/s. Matra Kaushal Enterprises Ltd. in which the assessee invested money and earned long term capital gain of Rs.2,20,06,230/- is a listed company on the stock exchange and subjected to various rules and regulations and compliances which has to be complied with before making any allotment to the applicant under preferential allotment process. We have also examined the various documents filed by the assessee in the paper book regarding date of purchase, allotment of equity shares, mode of payment of shares through account payee cheque, period of holding and sales of these shares through online screen based trading on Bolt platform of stock ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lkata and also in the statements recorded of various individuals as stated hereinabove. We find that nowhere the assessee's name figured and no evidences were found during the course of search and the entire allegations were based upon the surmises and conjunctures. The shares were duly allotted to the assessee and were recorded in the D-Mat account and thereafter were sold on the Bombay Stock Exchange through the registered broker and screen based trading where the buyer and seller of the shares are not aware of each other and the fact that the consideration was paid and received through banking channels. Moreover, the authorities below have failed to establish the money trail involved in the transaction and has only guessed that assessee might have paid his own money to route the same into books of accounts. Thus we note that the finding of the AO in discussing the modus operandi of the scam and dismissing the various statements of the exit providers is only general in nature which nowhere states the name of the assessee. The AO has also failed to establish a link among these reports, statements and the investment made by the assessee and therefore the addition made can not be su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding as under: "6. We have heard the rival submissions. The primary facts stated hereinabove remain undisputed and hence the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The assessee submitted the following details with regard to purchase of shares :- a) Copy of relevant extract of bank statement reflecting the payment of Rs 30 lacs made by the assessee by account payee cheque to the company directly and source thereof along with allotment letter issued by the said company (i.e GIFL) and copy of share certificate issued by GIFL to the assessee on 12.6.2012. These documents are enclosed in pages 71 to 73 of Paper Book. b) Demat account held with NKGSB Co-operative Bank Limited reflecting credit of shares purchased (enclosed in page 154 of Paper Book). c) Copy of approval letter from GIFL. d) Copy of allotment letter from GIFL for shares allotted to the assessee. e) Copy of share certificate issued by GIFL. f) Various events reported by GIFL to BSE. 6.1. The assessee submitted the following details with regard to sale of shares:- a) Copy of demat statement reflecting the sale of shares. b) Copies of Contract Notes issued by both the brokers for sale o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the order passed by SEBI while concluding that the transactions carried out by the assessee in the form of sale of shares as sham and bogus. From the perusal of the SEBI order dated 25.8.2016 in the case of First Financial Services Ltd, we find that from the extracts thereon, that it was stated that M/s GIFL was involved in providing exit to the sellers of equity shares of First Financial Services Ltd and no where stated that this company was involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of capital gains by transacting its own shares through the alleged bogus operators. We also find that the SEBI had passed on order dated 8.1.2018 in the case of GIFL, wherein it was found that the name of the assessee herein or the brokers through whom the assessee transacted were not even included in the said order as parties against whom any adverse inference / findings were found in respect of violation of provisions of SEBI. We find that SEBI had issued a show cause notice vide Reference SEBI/EAD- 12/SM/EE/693/25/2018 dated 8.1.2018 which are enclosed in pages 252 to 266 of the paper book. In pages 257 and 258 of the Paper Book, the list of parties to whom show cause notices were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nue stream and the profitability chart reproduced hereinabove does not support the case of the ld AO. Moreover, the status reported by the ld AO about GIFL was in Asst Year 2008-09 which is neither the year of purchase of shares by the assessee nor the year of sale of shares in open market. Hence those findings are totally irrelevant for adjudication of the issue before us. 6.5. We find that the revenue had merely disbelieved the entire documentary evidences on record and alleged the share sale transactions made in the open market as bogus based on the statements recorded during survey, which does not have any evidentiary value. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S.Khader Khan (2008) 300 ITR 157 (MAD) assumes significance, wherein it was held that :- "An admission is an extremely important piece of evidence , but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open to the person , who made it, to show it has incorrectly been made and the person, making the statement should be given proper opportunity to show that it does not show the correct state of facts." The materials found in the course of survey could not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company in its invitation letter to the assessee requesting for making preferential application of shares had proved to be correct and cannot be doubted. 6.7. We find that the ld AO had furnished certain list of parties who were alleged purchasers of shares from the assessee when it was sold in the open market by the assessee. The assessee had pleaded that since the shares were sold in the open market in online platform, he is not aware of the name of the parties as to who had bought the same in the open market. The ld AO sought to issue summons to those alleged purchasers of shares u/s 131 of the Act, which remain uncomplied by those parties. Based on this, the ld AO had drawn an adverse inference against the assessee disregarding the entire documentary evidences on record and the prevailing market practices with regard to purchase and sale of shares in the open market in online platform. It is not in dispute that the assessee had received the sale proceeds of shares from the registered broker through the stock exchange only and not from the alleged purchasers of shares directly. Moreover, the ld AO states that the assessee had sold the shares at Rs 211.76 per share whereas the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g considerable growth from the time of purchase, the assessee being a gullible investor, continued to hold it for a period of 26 months and later sold it in open market in online platform at prevailing market prices. 6.9. We find that the co-ordinate bench of Kolkata Tribunal in ITA No.354/Kol/2018 in Sanjeev Goel (HUF) vs. ITO dated 24.08.2018 on similar set of facts and circumstances had held as follows:- "4. We have heard rival contentions. On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record, orders of the authorities below as well as case law cited, we hold as follows:- 5. In identical cases, the submission of the assessee, findings of the Assessing Officer, findings of the ld. CIT(A) and the conclusion of the Tribunal have been brought out as under:- 6. The addition was made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- i. The initial allotment of shares to beneficiaries is generally done through preferential allotment. ii. The market price of shares of these companies rise to very high level within a span of one year. iii. The trading volume of shares during the period, in which manipulations are done to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Exchange. 7. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. 8. The First Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Assessing Officer by giving his findings as follows:- a) The AO had placed on record the entire gamut of finding and there is no further requirement for elaboration. b) There is direct evidence to clearly indicate that the entire transaction undertaken by the assessee was merely an accommodation taken for the purpose of bogus long term capital gains to claim exempt income. The authorities such as SEBI have after investigating such abnormal price increase of certain stocks, suspended certain scrips. c) The submissions of the assessee pointed out towards elaborate documentation such as : i) Application of shares. ii) Allotment of shares. iii) Share Certificates iv) Payment by cheques v) Filings before Registrar of Companies. vi) Proof of amalagamation of companies. vii) Copies of bank statement, viii) Bank contract notes. ix) Delivery instruction to the broker etc. d) The elaborate paper book is filed to strengthen the matter relevant to bogus claim of LTCG, and this is clearly been schemed and pre-planned with malaf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g term capital gains which his exempt from income tax. All these observations are general in nature and are applied across the board to all the 60,000 or more assessees who fall in this category. Specific evidences produced by the assessee are not controverted by the revenue authorities. No evidence collected from third parties is confronted to the assesses. No opportunity of cross-examination of persons, on whose statements the revenue relies to make the addition, is provided to the assessee. The addition is made based on a report from the investigation wing. 13. The issue for consideration before us is whether, in such cases, the legal evidence produced by the assessee has to guide our decision in the matter or the general observations based on statements, probabilities, human behavior and discovery of the modus operandi adopted in earning alleged bogus LTCG and STCG, that have surfaced during investigations, should guide the authorities in arriving at a conclusion as to whether the claim in genuine or not. An alleged scam might have taken place on LTCG etc. But it has to be established in each case, by the party alleging so, that this assessee in quesiton was part of this sca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (S C) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 16. We find that the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) has been guided by the report of the investigation wing prepared with respect to bogus capital gains transactions. However we do not find that, the assessing officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A), ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ountry boats acquired by Sahibgunj and the notoriety achieved by Dhulian as a great receiving centre for such commodities were merely a background of suspicion and the appellant could not be tarred with the same brush as every arhatdar and grain merchant who might have been indulging in smuggling operations, without an iota of evidence in that behalf. The cancellation of the food grain licence at Nawgachia and the prosecution of the appellant under the Defence of India Rules was also of no consequence inasmuch as the appellant was acquitted of the offence with which it had been charged and its licence also was restored. The mere possibility of the appellant earning considerable amounts in the year under consideration was a pure conjecture on the part of the Income-tax Officer and the fact that the appellant indulged in speculation (in Kalai account) could not legitimately lead to the inference that the profit in a single transaction or in a chain of transactions could exceed the amounts, involved in the high denomination notes,--- this also was a pure conjecture or surmise on the part of the Income-tax Officer. As regards the disclosed volume of business in the year under considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t evidence upon which he relies, and further that, the evidence of the opposite party should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party. Not providing the said opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, would violate the principles of natural justice. (See also: Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; Meenglas Tea Estate v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719; M/s. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Gangadhar and Ors. ,AIR 1964 SC 708; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr. AIR 2008 SC 876; Rachpal Singh and Ors. v. Gurmit Singh and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 2448; Biecco Lawrie and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr. AIR 2010 SC 142; and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha AIR 2010 SC 3131). 24. In Lakshman Exports Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise (2005) 10 SCC 634, this Court, while dealing with a case under the Central Excise Act, 1944, considered a similar issue i.e. permission with respect to the cross-examination of a witness. In the said case, the Assessee had specifically asked to be allowed to cross-examine the representatives of the firms concern, to establish that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ination is an integral part and parcel of the principles of natural justice." b) Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Kolkata-II wherein it was held that: "4. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the Assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 5. According to us, not allowing the Assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the Assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the Assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the Assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the Assessee. However, no such o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its books of accounts and offered for taxation. In our view to hold a transaction as bogus, there has to be some concrete evidence where the transactions cannot be proved with the supportive evidence. Here in the case the transactions of the commodity exchanged have not only been explained but also substantiated from the confirmation of the party. Both the parties are confirming the transactions which have been duly supported with the books of accounts and bank transactions. The ld. AR has also submitted the board resolution for the trading of commodity transaction. The broker was expelled from the commodity exchange cannot be the criteria to hold the transaction as bogus. In view of above, we reverse the order of the lower authorities and allow the common grounds of assessee's appeal." [quoted verbatim] This is essentially a finding of the Tribunal on fact. No material has been shown to us who would negate the Tribunal's finding that off market transactions are not prohibited. As regards veracity of the transactions, the Tribunal has come to its conclusion on analysis of relevant materials. That being the position, Tribunal having analyzed the set of facts in coming to its fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GAUTAM PINCHA [ITA No.569/Kol/2017] order dated 15.11.2017 held as under vide Page 12 Para 8.1: "In the light of the documents stated i.e. (I to xiv) in Para 6(supra) we find that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to have entered gamut of unfounded/unwarranted allegations leveled by the AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion has no legs to stand and therefore has to fall. We take note that the ld. DR could not controvert the facts supported with material evidences which are on record and could only rely on the orders of the AO/CIT (A). We note that in the absence of material/evidence the allegations that the assessee/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore also fail. At the cost of repetition, we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. These evidences were neither found by the AO nor by the ld. CIT (A) to be false or fictitious or bogus. The facts of the case and the evidence in sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, surmises and conjectures. It is to be kept in mind that suspicion how so ever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. It further held as follows: "We note that the ld. AR cited plethora of the case laws to bolster his claim which are not being repeated again since it has already been incorporated in the submissions of the ld. AR (supra) and have been duly considered to arrive at our conclusion. The ld. DR could not bring to our notice any case laws to support the impugned decision of the ld. CIT(A)/AO. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the addition of sale proceeds of the shares as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. We therefore direct the AO to delete the addition." f) The BENCH "A" OF KOLKATA ITAT in the case of SHALEEN KHEMANI [ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014] order dated 18.10.2017 held as under vide Page 24 Para 9.3: "We therefore hold that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to the entire gamut of unwarranted allegations leveled by the ld AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion, has no legs to stand in the eyes o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that transaction entered by the assessee was genuine. Detailed finding recorded by CIT (A) at para 3 to 5 has not been controverted by the department by bringing any positive material on record. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere in the findings of CIT (A)." h) The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of VIVEK MEHTA [ITA No. 894 OF 2010] order dated 14.11.2011 vide Page 2 Para 3 held as under: "On the basis of the documents produced by the assessee in appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) recorded a finding of fact that there was a genuine transaction of purchase of shares by the assessee on 16.3.2001 and sale thereof on 21.3.2002. The transactions of sale and purchase were as per the valuation prevalent in the Stocks Exchange. Such finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of evidence produced on record. The Tribunal has affirmed such finding. Such finding of fact is sought to be disputed in the present appeal. We do not find that the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax in appeal, gives give rise to any question(s) of law as sought to be raised in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs Pr.CIT (Nagpur) reported in (2018) 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) dated 10.4.2017 on the impugned issue. From the facts of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain supra, we find that (i) in that case, the broker company through which the shares were sold did not respond to AO's letter regarding the names and address and bank account of the person who purchased the shares sold by the assessee ; (ii) Moreover, at the time of acquisition of shares of both the companies by the assessee, the payments were made in cash ; (iii) The address of both the companies were interestingly the same ; (iv) The authorized signatory of both the companies were also the same person ; (v) The purchase of shares of both the companies was done by that assessee through broker, GSSL and the address of the said broker was incidentally the address of the two companies. Based on these crucial facts, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court rendered the decision in favour of the revenue. None of these factors were present in the facts of the assessee before us. Hence it could be safely concluded that the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court supra is factually disti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of shares of GIFL in the sum of Rs 7,88,77,854/- as unexplained income of the assessee treating the same as just an accommodation entry. Consequentially, the addition made towards commission on such accommodation entry at the rate of 5% in the sum of Rs 39,43,898/- is also hereby directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed." 9.3. We find that Ld. A.R. has also distinguished the decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) as discussed hereinabove and the same are not applicable. 9.4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of various decisions of the co-ordinate Benches and Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court we are not in agreement with the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A) that the long term capital gain made by the assessee from sale of shares is a non genuine transaction and accordingly we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the addition made under section 68 of the Act and direct the AO to grant exemption under section 10(38) of the Act in respect of long term capital gain. The ground no. 1 to 3 are allowed. 10. The issue raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
