9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 904 - AT - Income TaxDenial of exemption for long term capital gains treating the same as unexplained cash credit - CIT-A allowed the claim - rejecting the claim of the assessee on the basis of theory of surrounding circumstances, human conduct, and preponderance of probability - Held that - Donor confirmed the fact of making the gift and delivering the shares by transfer to the Demat Account of the assessee. The copy of the demat account of the Donor are also available in Pages 38-39 of the Paper Book which shows that the Donor was holding 40,000 shares of SOCIL as on 31-03-2006. Thus the assessee has substantiated and the Donors have duly confirmed the transaction of gift, therefore the ld AO was not justified in doubting the gift of shares made to the assessee. The assessee and / or the stock broker M/s P Didwania & Co and Toshith Securities P Ltd., both registered share and stock brokers with Calcutta Stock Exchange had confirmed the transaction and have issued legally valid contract notes under the Law. There is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to the entire gamut of unwarranted allegations leveled by the ld AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion, has no legs to stand in the eyes of law. We find that the ld DR could not controvert the arguments of the ld AR with contrary material evidences on record and merely relied on the orders of the ld AO. We find that the allegation that the assessee and / or Brokers getting invo2lved in price rigging of SOICL shares fails. It is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These evidences were neither found by the ld AO to be false or fabricated. The facts of the case and the evidences in support of the assessee s case clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were bonafide and genuine and therefore the ld AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee s claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. Hence we hold that the ld AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares of SOICL as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act and therefore we uphold the order of the ld CIT-A and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the deletion of the addition made on account of denial of exemption for long-term capital gains. 2. Examination of the veracity of the long-term capital gains exemption claimed by the assessee. 3. Treatment of the capital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Justification of the Deletion of the Addition Made on Account of Denial of Exemption for Long-Term Capital Gains: The primary issue in this appeal is whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CITA] was justified in deleting the addition made on account of denial of exemption for long-term capital gains amounting to ?1,27,92,984 by treating it as unexplained cash credit. The assessee filed a return of income declaring total income of ?4,86,180 and claimed an exemption for long-term capital gains from the sale of shares of Shiv Om Investments & Consultancy Ltd (SOICL). The shares were obtained as gifts from two individuals and were sold through the Calcutta Stock Exchange. 2. Examination of the Veracity of the Long-Term Capital Gains Exemption Claimed by the Assessee: The Assessing Officer (AO) examined the exemption claimed by issuing notices to various parties, including donors and stock brokers, and collected information regarding the transactions. Despite receiving confirmations from the parties involved, the AO found the replies unsatisfactory and questioned the significant increase in the share price, which he deemed unbelievable. The AO concluded that the capital gains could not be explained properly and treated the amount as cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that all necessary documents, including gift deeds, income tax records of donors, contract notes, bank statements, and Demat account details, were provided, and the AO had not found any irregularities in the evidence submitted. The assessee contended that the AO's adverse inferences were based on assumptions and not supported by material evidence. 3. Treatment of the Capital Gains as Unexplained Cash Credit Under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The CITA, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof by providing all necessary documents and that the AO's conclusions were based on suspicion rather than concrete evidence. The CITA noted that the transactions were conducted through a recognized stock exchange, supported by valid contract notes, and the sale proceeds were received through account payee cheques. The CITA emphasized that the AO had not brought any evidence to prove that the documents were false or fabricated. Consequently, the CITA directed the AO to treat the capital gains as long-term capital gains exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Conclusion: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) upheld the CITA's decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The ITAT found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support the genuineness of the transactions and that the AO's conclusions were based on unfounded assumptions. The ITAT emphasized that the AO had not produced any legal evidence to counter the assessee's claims or to prove that the transactions were bogus. The ITAT concluded that the assessee was entitled to the exemption for long-term capital gains, and the addition made by the AO was not justified.
|
