2019 (1) TMI 1216 - AT - Income Tax

Bogus LTCG - claim of exemption U/s.10(38) denied - addition u/s 68 - Held that - AR has only come out with the plea that the assessee were not provided with opportunity of cross-examining the witness, the investigation report was not furnished and proper opportunity was not provided of being heard. However we find that all these arguments raised by the AR before us was never alleged before the Revenue Authorities when the matter was before them. In this situation we do not have any other option but to confirm the orders of the Revenue Authorities in the case of all the assessee because the AO as well as the CIT(A) have arrived at their respective decisions after considering the issues in the appeal in detail and there is nothing before us to disturb their findings. Accordingly we hereby confirm the Order of the Ld.Revenue Authorities on this issue. Thus the first ground raised by the assessees herein above in all the appeals are held against the assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Denial of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act on Long Term Capital Gains
- Incorrect computation of total income
- Denial of set-off losses
- Levy of interest under Section 234B & 234C of the Act

Analysis:

1. Denial of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act on Long Term Capital Gains:
- The assessees contested the addition made by the AO under Section 68 of the Act, rejecting their claim of exemption under Section 10(38) for Long Term Capital Gains from the sale of shares of M/s. SRK Industries Ltd. The AO treated the transactions as sham to convert unaccounted money into legitimate gains. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.
- The AO found that the company's shares lacked credibility, and investors were part of a price rigging syndicate. The AO concluded that the assessees benefited from price manipulation to claim tax exemption under Section 10(38).
- Citing legal precedents, including Sumathi Dayal and M/s. Durga Prasad More cases, the AO justified the denial of exemption based on the test of human probabilities. The CIT(A) concurred with this decision.

2. Incorrect computation of total income:
- Discrepancies were found in the valuation of shares sold by different assessees compared to the values adopted by the AO. This issue was raised by specific assessees like Smt. Sampati Agarwal, Shri Rajnish Agarwal, and Shri Pankaj Agarwal. The matter was remitted back to the AO for verification and appropriate decision.

3. Denial of set-off losses:
- In the case of Shri Rajnish Agarwal, the AO disallowed the set-off of losses on the sale of shares while computing total income. The matter was remitted to the AO for a detailed reconsideration due to lack of discussion by the AO and CIT(A) on this issue.

4. Levy of interest under Section 234B & 234C of the Act:
- The assessees objected to the imposition of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act. However, the Tribunal deemed this levy as consequential and devoid of merits.

5. Final Decision:
- The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals of certain assessees while dismissing others. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Revenue Authorities where detailed considerations were made, and no new evidence was presented to overturn those decisions. The matter was remitted back to the AO for specific issues that required further verification and consideration.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's final decision on each matter raised by the assessees in their appeals.