2022 (10) TMI 1142 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus LTCG - exemption u/s 10(38) - long-term capital gain on sale of shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited. AO disbelieved this transaction and estimated a commission expenditure for arranging this transaction - HELD THAT - We find that there are large number of assessees, who have transacted with equity shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited and claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Apart from this scrip, there are other scrips also in Kolkata, who were found to be penny stock and transactions on papers only. The Hon ble Calcutta High Court has recently considered this aspect in its judgment in the case of Swati Bajaj Others 2022 (6) TMI 670 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT . In a number of appeals, we have also rejected the claim of the assessees, the assessee transacted the shares of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limtied. All these transactions have been held as bogus. Therefore, relying upon the decision of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court coupled with various orders of the ITAT, we are of the view that Revenue Authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the assessee and made the additions. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata for assessment year 2014-15. Addition of Rs.10,12,825 claimed as exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. Rejection of claim due to alleged bogus nature of transaction involving sale of shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited.

Analysis:

1. Issue of Appeal Against CIT(A) Order:
The assessee appealed before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata dated 04.04.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15. Despite multiple notices and attempts to contact the assessee, there was no response from their end, leading to the case being listed and postponed numerous times.

2. Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38):
The core issue revolved around the addition of Rs.10,12,825 claimed by the assessee as exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had earned a long-term capital gain on the sale of shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited. However, the ld. Assessing Officer disbelieved the transaction, alleging it to be a bogus claim and estimated a commission expenditure of Rs.30,385 for arranging the transaction.

3. Alleged Bogus Nature of Transaction:
The Tribunal examined the transaction history where the assessee had purchased equity shares of M/s. CAPL, which later amalgamated with M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Limited. Subsequently, the assessee sold shares of Kailash Auto Finance Limited and claimed a capital gain of Rs.9,87,825 as exempt. The Revenue authorities rejected this claim, asserting that Kailash Auto Finance Limited was involved in artificially inflating the share prices, categorizing the claim as bogus.

4. Judicial Precedents and Tribunal Decisions:
The Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj & Others, where similar transactions involving penny stocks like Kailash Auto Finance Limited were scrutinized. Additionally, the Tribunal mentioned rejecting similar claims in various appeals, emphasizing the consistent stance on such transactions. Citing decisions like ITA Nos. 2552/KOL/2018 and others, the Tribunal upheld the Revenue Authorities' decision to reject the assessee's claim, aligning with the High Court's ruling and previous Tribunal orders.

5. Final Decision and Dismissal of Appeal:
After thorough consideration of the facts, judicial precedents, and previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue Authorities were justified in rejecting the assessee's claim for exemption under section 10(38). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the addition of Rs.10,12,825 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2014-15.

6. Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of substantiating claims related to capital gains and the repercussions of engaging in transactions with entities involved in suspicious activities like artificially inflating share prices. The dismissal of the appeal underscored the significance of adhering to tax laws and regulations to prevent unwarranted exemptions based on questionable transactions.