9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 800 - HC - Income TaxUnexplained income u/s 68 - sale proceeds of the share treated as bogus - ITAT deleted addition - HELD THAT - Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. sold by the assessee cannot be doubted as bogus and exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act was rightly availed by the assessee. Tribunal has also concluded that the presumption drawn by the AO was not corroborated by any evidence to establish the alleged non-genuine transaction by the assessee. It was, therefore, rightly held by the Tribunal that the claim of the assessee for exemption of Long Term Capital Gains u/s 10(38) of the Act cannot be held to be bogus on the basis of presumption in absence of any evidence brought on record by the assessee with regard to shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd, which is not even found to be rigged by the SEBI also. Tribunal has also considered that the assessee held the shares for two and half years and after holding the shares for a long period, the same were sold by the assessee and therefore, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai 2023 (1) TMI 44 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of sale proceeds as unexplained income under Section 68. 2. Genuineness of investment in shares. 3. Ignoring the admission of bogus LTCG entries by an entry provider. 4. Ignoring manipulation of share prices. 5. Denial of cross-examination opportunity. 6. Deletion of disallowance of commission expenses. Summary: Issue 1: Deletion of Addition of Sale Proceeds as Unexplained Income The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 49,01,840/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was based on the sale of shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd., a penny stock. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction, including ledger accounts, debit notes, share certificates, bank statements, and payment of Securities Transaction Tax (STT). Issue 2: Genuineness of Investment in Shares The Tribunal held that the investment in shares was genuine, relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Jagat Pravin Sarabhai. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had held the shares for over two years and sold them through a registered broker, with all transactions conducted through the banking channel. Issue 3: Ignoring Admission of Bogus LTCG Entries The Tribunal found no evidence to support the claim that the assessee was involved in bogus Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) entries, as alleged by the entry provider Shri Anuj Agarwal. The Tribunal emphasized that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent investigations and relied solely on the report of the Investigation Wing. Issue 4: Ignoring Manipulation of Share Prices The Tribunal rejected the Assessing Officer's claim of manipulation of share prices, stating that the transactions were conducted through recognized stock exchanges and were supported by documentary evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided detailed information about the company and its financials, which were not refuted by the Assessing Officer. Issue 5: Denial of Cross-Examination Opportunity The Tribunal observed that the assessee was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, which violated the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was neither disproved nor found to be fabricated. Issue 6: Deletion of Disallowance of Commission Expenses The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of Rs. 98,038/- towards commission expenses under Section 69C, as it was consequential to the deletion of the main addition of Rs. 49,01,840/-. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the claim that the transactions were sham or that the assessee received cash back. Conclusion: The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the transactions were genuine and the addition under Section 68 was not justified. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's order.
|
