9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 641X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iscussed above. Even for the sake of repetition, it is reiterated that it is not a case here that any such information or material was found or discovered that the assessee beneficiary of any accommodation entry nor there is any such statement or material either from the broker or from the stock exchange or from elsewhere. Thus, no reason to sustain the addition made u/s.68. - Decided in favour of assessee. Addition of commission paid for procuring the long term capital gain - HELD THAT:- As we have already adjudicated the main issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the addition of long term capital gain was wrong and directed the AO to delete the same. Therefore, this being consequential ground and AO is also directed to delete the addition - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.R. For the Revenue : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, D.R. ORDER PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 13.12.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Companies involving in rigging of prices. Finally, the AO came to the conclusion that it was an organized way of doing price rigging, securing gains to beneficiaries by paying STT on the sale and purchase of shares done on the recognised stock exchange and finally treated the said long term capital gain as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and thus made an addition of ₹ 98,93,959/- and further added ₹ 66,948/- towards commission paid for securing such capital gain by framing assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 30.12.2016. 5. In the appellate proceedings, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of AO by holding that the long term capital gain on sale of shares of M/s. Jolly Plastic Industry Ltd. was earned through a rocket as established by director of investigation, Kolkata and further proved by the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. 6. The Ld. A.R., at the outset, submitted that the issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Akshay Jain vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad ITA No.4199/Del/2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st June, 2012 for ₹ 1,34,000/-. Thereafter, the shares were dematerialsed on 24.10.2013 showing the purchase of 10,000 share of M/s. Jolly Plastic Industries Ltd. The said shares have been sold for ₹ 30,19,500/- in the Bombay Stock Exchange through a recognized broker, South Asian Stock Ltd. who has traded the shares between 15:03 to 15:06 @ 309.10 per shares. The contract note for sale shows the transactions timing, trade number and the amount of STT paid on such shares. After the sale of shares on 29.10.2013, the amount of sale proceeds have been credited in the bank account of the assessee on 01.11.2013 and 05.112013. The bank statement clearly shows RTGS credit from South Asian Stock Ltd. These documents ostensibly go to show that the credits appearing in the bank account is from sales of shares only and the source of credit in the bank account stands well established as required under section 68. The issue raised by the learned Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) are that it is an unaccounted money which has been routed sham transaction of Long Term Capital Gain because for the reasons that; Firstly, the trading of the shares of M/s. Jolly Plastic Ltd. was suspended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has routed his own unaccounted money, then there has to be some material to provide live link nexus to show that the unaccounted money has been routed under the garb perusal of the historic price of shares of M/s. Jolly Plastic Industries Ltd., it is seen that the price of the said shares had been steadily growing since December, 2012 and had reached to its zenith around October, 2013 and trading in such shares was continuing uptill January, 2015. It was only in January 2015, the SEBI has suspended its trading which was much after the assessee had sold the shares. Apart from that, the copy of balance sheet of M/s. Jolly Plastic Industries Ltd. as filed by the learned counsel available in the public domain, it cannot be held that the said company did not had any operations or sales as the figures of sale as on 31st March, 2013 and as on 31st March, 2014 has already been incorporated above. If what is apparent is not real, then Department has to bring some cogent material on record to prove that assessee s contention/explanation are incorrect or are not substantiated. Here, in this case, addition has been sought to be made u/s.68 which postulates that assessee has to prove the nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
