2019 (4) TMI 1503 - HC - Income Tax

Bogus Long Term Capital Gain - transactions for purchase of shares were not genuine as there is no evidence regarding date of purchase of shares - purchase of shares mentioned only cash payment - HELD THAT - This matter is squarely covered by a judgment of this court in CIT Vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal , 2017 (9) TMI 1104 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT wherein the issues were answered in favour of the assessee and against the department. This appeal be also decided in view thereof. In that view of the matter, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of addition of ?2,65,27,020 made on account of Bogus Long Term Capital Gain.
2. Justification of the ITAT, Jaipur in deleting the addition when genuineness of payment for purchase of shares was not proved.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowing the appeal filed by the respondent/assessee regarding the addition of ?2,65,27,020 made on account of Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. The appellant contended that the transactions for the purchase of shares were not genuine due to lack of evidence regarding the date of purchase of shares. The appellant questioned the justification of the ITAT in deleting the addition confirmed by the CIT (A). The appellant argued that the bills for the purchase of shares only mentioned cash payments, and no payments were made through banking channels. The appellant relied on a previous judgment of the court in a similar matter where the issues were decided in favor of the assessee. However, the court dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose in this case based on the precedent judgment.

2. The primary issue in this case was the genuineness of the transactions related to the purchase of shares and the justification for deleting the addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT (A). The appellant raised concerns about the lack of evidence regarding the date of purchase of shares and the absence of payments through banking channels. The appellant sought to establish that the transactions were not genuine, leading to the addition of Long Term Capital Gain being deemed as bogus. However, the court, considering a previous judgment where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee, dismissed the appeal, stating that the matter was squarely covered by the precedent judgment and no substantial question of law arose for consideration in this appeal.