9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support its finding that there has been collusion/ connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of assesses own unaccounted money. LTCG claimed by the assessee is resulting from purchases made directly from the seller through a/c payee cheque based on actual delivery of shares, the transaction for sale is through registered broker on the floor of the stock exchange. LTCG of ₹ 33,63,368/- is fully supported by evidence, which in my considered opinion needs to be allowed. The assessee has justified the LTCG as a genuine and bonafide transaction the cost of ₹ 1,14,686/- shall also be allowed as a deduction from the sale consideration. Hence, the enhanced addition is deleted. - ITA No. 410/Del/2018 - - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be deleted. 5. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the assessed income by ₹ 1,40,686/- being the cost allowed by the AO. The enhancement is legally not permissible and the CIT(A) cannot improve the case of the AO. 6. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to one and another. 7. The appellant may be allowed to add, amend, alter, forgo any of the grounds at the time of hearing. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 29.7.2014 declaring income of ₹ 2,62,000/- after claiming the income from long term capital gain (LTCG) of ₹ 33,63,365/- on sale of listed equity shares of Unno Industries Ltd. which were subjected to STT as exempt income under section 10(38) of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. He further stated that lower authorities has placed reliance on statement recorded by Investigation Wing, Kolkatta which has no nexus to the assessse s case. It was further stated by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the addition in dispute made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 68 as unexplained credit instead of long term capital gain as claimed by the assessee, however, the source identity and genuineness of the transaction having been established by documentary evidences and there is no case for making addition u/s 68. It was further contended that Ld. CIT(A) also has erred in enhancing the assessed income by ₹ 1,40,686/- being the cost allowed by the AO. The enhancement is legally not permissible and the CIT(A) can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 68 of the Ac. I further note that AO has placed reliance on the information provided by the Investigation Wing and the statement recorded on oath of various persons. I further find that in support of claim of LTCG, the assessee has provided all the documents relating to sale and purchase which have taken place only through banking channel and are supported by contract note from HDFC Securities and the shares of Unno Industries Ltd. being listed shares on stock-exchange were filed by the assessee before the AO. I note that the shares of assessee were sold through HDFC Securities Ltd. at Bombay Stock Exchange and assessee received sale consideration from HDFC Securities Ltd. after payment of STT and brokerage. However, the AO has not br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account of sham share transactions ignoring an important aspect that the transaction of shares showing their purchase price at ₹ 11,00,000/- and sale consideration at ₹ 4,23,45,295/- within a period of less than two years / purchases of shares made in cash not cheque that too before shares got dematerialized / worth of the company at the time of purchase / sale of shares not proved- All suggest non-genuineness of the said transaction? ( ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has erred in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 4,11,77,474/- made by the AO on account of sham share transactions, whereas the CIT(A) himself ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is this : The assessee purchased shares of a company during the assessment year 2006-07 at ₹ 11/- and sold the same in the assessment year 2008- 09 at ₹ 400/- per share. In the above case, namely, ITA 18-2017 also the assessee had purchased and sold the shares in the same assessment years. The AO in both the cases added the appreciation to the assessees income on the suspicion that these were fictitious transactions and that the appreciation actually represented the assessee s income from undisclosed sources. In ITA-18-2017 also the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the AO had not produced any evidence whatsoever in support of the suspicion. On the other hand, although the appreciation is very high, the shares were trad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
