2021 (1) TMI 896 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69 - denial of exemption of long term capital gain - penny stock purchases - HELD THAT - The present case is fully covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in Reeshu Goel 2019 (10) TMI 1387 - ITAT DELHI wherein the same script from which the assessee had obtained Long Term Capital Gain has been held to be genuine. Therefore, following the same, we hold that the scrip of CCL International Ltd. is genuine and not a penny stock and paper entity. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved
1. Delay in filing the appeals.
2. Legitimacy of the long-term capital gains claimed by the assessees.
3. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act.
5. Reliance on the Investigation Wing's report and the genuineness of the scrip of CCL International Ltd.

Detailed Analysis

1. Delay in Filing the Appeals
The appeals were delayed by four days due to the assessees counting the prescribed period from the date of physical delivery of the order instead of the electronic delivery date. The delay was condoned as the reason was found reasonable, and there was no objection from the respondent.

2. Legitimacy of the Long-Term Capital Gains Claimed by the Assessees
The assessees claimed long-term capital gains from the sale of shares of CCL International Ltd. The shares were purchased through cheques, held in a demat account, and sold through a registered broker, with proceeds credited to the bank account. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claims, labeling the transactions as bogus based on a report from the Investigation Wing, which did not specifically relate to the assessees. The counsel for the assessees argued that the shares were genuine, citing a Delhi Tribunal ruling in the case of Reeshu Goel, which held the scrip of CCL International Ltd. to be genuine.

3. Addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act
The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68, treating the capital gains as bogus. The Tribunal found that the assessees had provided sufficient documentation, including bank statements, contract notes, and demat account statements, proving the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal referenced the Reeshu Goel case, which concluded that CCL International Ltd. was not a paper entity and that the transactions were genuine.

4. Addition under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act
The Assessing Officer also made additions under Section 69, assuming that the assessees had paid some commission for arranging bogus capital gains. The Tribunal found no evidence to support this assumption and noted that the broker of the assessees was not investigated. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the additions made under Section 69.

5. Reliance on the Investigation Wing's Report and the Genuineness of the Scrip of CCL International Ltd.
The Investigation Wing's report labeled CCL International Ltd. as a penny stock used for creating artificial capital gains. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessees' transactions were genuine, referencing the Reeshu Goel case, which held that CCL International Ltd. was a legitimate company. The Tribunal also distinguished the case of Udit Kalra, noting that the Delhi High Court had dismissed the appeal as it involved only a question of fact and did not set a precedent.

Conclusion
The Tribunal concluded that the scrip of CCL International Ltd. was genuine and not a penny stock or paper entity. The appeals of the assessees were partly allowed, with the Tribunal deleting the additions made under Sections 68 and 69. The Stay Applications filed by the assessees were dismissed as infructuous.

Final Orders
1. Delay in filing the appeals was condoned.
2. The appeals were partly allowed on merits.
3. Additions under Sections 68 and 69 were deleted.
4. Stay Applications were dismissed as infructuous.

← Previous Next →