9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 109 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 68 - Sham and bogus Loss booked in manipulated penny stocks - case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(2) - CIT-A deleted the addition - HELD THAT - A.O had absolutely on the basis of glaringly incorrect and misconceived facts made an addition u/s 68 - assessee had during the year under consideration not traded in the shares of the aforementioned companies. Rather, the scrips in question, viz. (i). M/s Shreenath Commercials Finance Ltd. (1,00,000 shares); and (ii). M/s Tuni Textiles Mills Ltd. (14,60,500 shares) were even held by the assessee in the succeeding year i.e A.Y. 2015-16. We are unable to comprehend that now when the assessee had not sold any of the aforementioned scrips during the year, then, how and on what basis the A.O had concluded that the assessee had booked a bogus loss on sale of shares, which thereafter had been set-off against its other income. As the loss suffered by the assessee company is on account of the valuation of inventory and not a trading loss or a capital loss, therefore, in our considered view the CIT(A) had rightly vacated the addition. As the valuation of the closing stock of the shares held by the assessee is as per the provisions of Sec. 145 of the Act and in conformity with the Accounting Standard 2 (AS-2), therefore, no infirmity qua the loss suffered by the assessee pursuant to the diminution in the value of the inventory therein arises. Backed by the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that as the A.O had framed the assessment on the basis of glaringly misconceived and incorrect facts - Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal when the loss of ?4,00,08,550/- booked by the assessee in manipulated penny stocks is sham and bogus in nature. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Bogus Loss from Penny Stocks: The primary issue revolves around the revenue's contention that the loss of ?4,00,08,550/- booked by the assessee in penny stocks was sham and bogus. The assessee, engaged in trading and investment in shares and securities, declared a loss of ?4,00,72,252/- for A.Y 2014-15. The Assessing Officer (A.O) observed that the assessee had traded in penny stocks of M/s Shreenath Commercials and M/s Tuni Textiles Mills, fraudulently booking a "Short Term Capital Loss" (STCL) of ?3,86,56,040/-. The A.O concluded that this loss was a prearranged method to evade taxes and added the loss as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Assessee's Appeal to CIT(A): The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), arguing that the A.O had misinterpreted the facts. The assessee claimed that the loss was due to a decrease in the value of inventory, not from the sale of shares. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had not undertaken any trading during the year and the loss was indeed due to the diminution in the value of inventory. The shares in question were still held by the assessee in the succeeding assessment year, thus supporting the assessee's claim. Consequently, the CIT(A) vacated the addition made by the A.O. 3. Revenue's Appeal to ITAT: The revenue, dissatisfied with the CIT(A)'s decision, appealed to the ITAT. The Departmental Representative (D.R) relied on the lower authorities' orders but failed to provide a basis for the A.O's conclusion regarding the loss from the sale of shares. The Authorized Representative (A.R) for the assessee reiterated that the A.O had made an addition based on incorrect facts. 4. ITAT's Observations and Decision: The ITAT reviewed the orders of the lower authorities and the material on record. It was observed that the assessee had been holding shares of three companies as stock-in-trade and had not traded these shares during the year. The drastic fall in the price of these shares led to the loss due to the valuation of inventories. The ITAT concurred with the CIT(A) that the A.O had based his addition on incorrect facts. The loss suffered was on account of the valuation of inventory, not a trading loss or capital loss. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no merit in the revenue's appeal, and dismissed the same. Conclusion: The ITAT concluded that the A.O had framed the assessment based on glaringly misconceived and incorrect facts. The loss was due to the diminution in the value of inventory, not from the sale of shares. The CIT(A) had rightly vacated the addition made by the A.O, and the ITAT upheld this decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal. The order was pronounced in the open court on 29.09.2021.
|
