TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion activity - HELD THAT:- We have gone through the decision in Surendra Shantilal Peety s case[ 2022 (5) TMI 116 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , we find that the issue as to whether CBDT Circular No.23 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and Office Memorandum dated 16.09.2019 had any retrospective effect came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Pr.CIT vs. Anand Natwarlal Sharda [ 2021 (6) TMI 1065 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] held that the said Circular read with Office Memorandum could not be construed to have retrospective effect with which the Hon'ble Bombay High Court was in respectful agreement. Finding force in the submissions of the Ld. AR, we hold that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are have increased exponentially in 2 months with no cogent evidence on record whereas the holding period of the assessee is just over one year barely sufficient to book exempt LTCG. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the investigation conducted by the directorate of investigation, Kolkata where it has been shown that the directors of the company Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. were 1 fact dummy directors of the company itself was a shell company only used by the operators to provide bogus and fraudulent entries for their clients. 3. The assessee is an individual. He derived income from house property, business and other sources. He filed his return for AY 2014-15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellant s claim of tax-exempt LTCG in the impugned order is similar to that in Manish Kumar Bald vs. ACIT (supra) wherein the ITAT Kolkatta has allowed the assessee s appeal. Accordingly, the facts mentioned in the above court decision (relied upon by the appellant) are almost identical to those in the present case. Even here, reliance has been placed on SEBI s interim orders, investigation done by the Income Department (Kolkata) and statements of brokers including Sh. Sunil Dokania, yet no adverse inferences have been drawn in the impugned order on the evidences filed by the appellant. These appear to have been accepted the reason for the rejection appears to be that the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by the appellant w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed back to the total income. Further, it is typical that these transactions are carried out on a commission basis. From various statements it is observed that commission @ 3% has been charged for providing arranged capital gain. Since you have claimed an LTCG of Rs.53,83,045/-, an amount of Rs.1,61,491/- i.e. 3% of Rs.53,83,045/- is being added u/s. 69C as unexplained expenditure. Further, purchase value of Rs.1,50,000/- is added back to your income as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C. From the above portion of the impugned order, it is observed that the reasons for the additions of the purchase price of the shares of M/s. CPAL and commission @ 3% on arrangement of LTCG are the rejection of the appellant s claim of LTCG are the rejecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/-) is deleted. The ground at (f) is allowed. 5. The Revenue being aggrieved is before the Tribunal and all the five grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO. 7. The Ld. AR drew our attention to certain facts which according to him are relevant for the purpose of deciding the impugned appeal of the Revenue. He pointed out that the Pr. CIT, Delhi-10, passed order on 16.05.2018 authorizing the ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi under section 253(2) of the Act to file appeal to the ITAT in the case of the assessee and stated therein that limitation expires on 28.05.2018. The Ld. AR further pointed out that the CBDT issued Circular No. 23 of 2019 on 06.09.2019 stating therein that notwithstanding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal of the Revenue is not maintainable on account of tax effect being low and deserves to be dismissed. 9. In rebuttal, the Ld. DR had nothing to say. 10. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available in the records. We have gone through the decision in Surendra Shantilal Peety s case (supra). We find that the issue as to whether CBDT Circular No.23 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019 and Office Memorandum dated 16.09.2019 had any retrospective effect came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Pr.CIT vs. Anand Natwarlal Sharda (2021) 281 Taxman 300 (Guj.) and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that the said Circular read with Office Memorandum could not be construed to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
