2010 (2) TMI 1184 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus Capital gain - ingenuine transactions of shares - AO rejected the assessee s claim for high price and mere filing of the contract notes could not be accepted as evidence of the genuineness of the transactions thus assessee has failed to prove the identity of the purchaser - CIT(A) deleted addition - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has called for the Remand Report and the remand report of the A.O. it was seen that CSE vide their letter had clearly confirmed that the shares of both the companies were listed with the exchange. We find that the genuineness of the transactions of purchase and sales of shares. In the remand report it was clearly mentioned that the transaction has been clearly confirmed by the brokers but also through separate letter issued by the brokers . We find that the CIT(A) has called for the remand report and the inquiries were conducted to ascertain whether or not transactions even though they were conducted on-line it has been duly reported by exchange as required by the guidelines issued by the SEBI. The AO has furnished report wherein it has been mentioned that the brokers and the depository have confirmed the said share transactions. Therefore we are of the view that the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the same and our interference is not required.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against deletion of addition and taxation under section 112(1)(d) of the I.T. Act.

Analysis:
1. Deletion of Addition: The Assessing Officer (AO) noted the sale of shares by the assessee and questioned the genuineness of the transactions based on discrepancies in the contract notes. The AO treated the entire sales proceeds as unexplained cash credit under section 68. However, the CIT(A) allowed the claim, stating that the AO was unjustified in treating the transactions as not genuine. The CIT(A) directed the deletion of the addition and accepted the declared capital gains, emphasizing that the assessee was eligible for taxation at a concessional rate under section 112(1)(d) of the I.T. Act.

2. Taxation under Section 112(1)(d): The AO contended that the assessee used the stock exchange to create income sources from illegal money, manipulating profits and losses in the books. The AO alleged manipulation of stock exchanges and treated the sales proceeds as unexplained cash credit under section 68. In contrast, the assessee argued that the shares sold were registered with SEBI and CSE, confirming their genuineness. The brokers' confirmation letters and the remand report established the legitimacy of the transactions, meeting the requirements of section 112(1)(d). The CIT(A) called for a remand report, which confirmed the transactions and the listing of shares with the exchange, supporting the deletion of the addition.

In conclusion, the CIT(A) decision to delete the addition and tax the assessee under the proviso to section 112(1)(d) was upheld, as the genuineness of the transactions was established through broker confirmations and remand reports. The tribunal found no need for interference, affirming the CIT(A)'s judgment.