9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... capital gains, in our opinion, was not dependent upon factum of actual receipt of sale consideration by the assessee and therefore, the stand of lower authorities, in this regard, could not be sustained. So far as the valuation of shares is concerned, it is notable that the SQL was a listed entity whose trading was suspended from BSE during the month of December, 2013 when the last traded price of the Share was ₹ 1.08 per share - the said entity was loss making entity and there was no ready buyer of its share upon its suspension from trading on stock exchange. The price of listed shares, in our opinion, are governed more by demand-supply factors and therefore, the sale consideration could not be rejected by revenue merely by suspec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing the claim of loss under the head Capital gains on the sale of aforesaid shares inasmuch the loss in genuine and further, all the details as regards the sale of the aforesaid whereas have been furnished. The appellants further, contend that the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer inasmuch as the CIT(A) has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety and hence, the impugned disallowance requires to be deleted . 2.1 Facts in brief that the assessee being resident corporate assessee engaged in trading of shares, derivatives and commodities during the impugned AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee submitted that SQL was delisted from BSE and it was loss-making company and therefore, the shares were sold at discounted price in an off-market transaction since there was no purchaser of these shares in the market. However, in the absence of requisite documentary evidences and noticing that the payment of the shares was not received by the assessee during impugned AY, Ld. AO treated the same as fabricated and sham transaction disallowed the LTCL as claimed by the assessee. 3.1 Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same without any success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 26/03/2018 and submitted additional documentary evidences in terms of Rule-46A to substantiate the stated transaction. These evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... generated gains for the assessee during impugned AY was accepted by Ld. AO and therefore, the contrasting stand on the part of Ld. AO was not justified. 3.3 After due consideration of remand report, assessee s rebuttal and factual matrix, Ld. CIT(A) noted that sale consideration was not received by the assessee despite lapse of considerable period of time and further the assessee has not supported the sale consideration with any valuation report and therefore, upheld the stand of Ld. AO, against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, drawing our attention to the documents placed in the paperbook submitted that transaction was supported by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justified. 5.1 We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material available on record including documents placed in the paper-book. The undisputed position that emerges is that the assessee, holding substantial shareholdings in SQL, is stated to have sold certain number of shares of that entity in off-market transactions to a purchaser during impugned AY which has given rise to Long Term Capital Loss in the hands of the assessee. In support of the transaction, the assessee has placed on record sale note dated 15/03/2014, two delivery instruction slips in support of transfer of shares totaling to 16.50 Lacs number of shares, demat statement of the assessee as well as purchaser evidencing purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction was duly recognized by the assessee as well as the purchaser. The revenue has doubted the transaction primarily on the ground that the sale consideration was not received by the assessee during impugned AY and therefore, the transaction was merely a sham transaction . However, nothing on record suggest the same. It is trite law that addition could not be made merely on the basis of suspicion, conjectures or surmises without bringing on record any adverse material against the assessee to rebut the assessee s documentary evidences. 5.2 As per charging Section 48, the income chargeable under the head Capital Gains is to be computed by deducting from the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
