9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogus LTCG on listed company s shares - Addition u/s 68 - disallowance of appellant s claim of exempt income u/s 10(38) - HELD THAT:- We find that fact of the present case is identical to the facts in [ 2024 (4) TMI 529 - ITAT SURAT] wherein held as the assessee proved genuineness of sale transaction by bringing on record contract notes of sale and purchase, bank statement of broker and demat account showing transfer in and out of shares, Assessing Officer was not justified in bringing to tax capital gain arising from sale of shares as unexplained cash credit. Thus, addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted. In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed. - Shri Pawan Singh, Judicial Member And Dr Ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egular Chartered Accountant (CA) is frequently changing password for the purpose of safety and security of their electronic sets. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that order of NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) came to his notice only in the first week of January, 2024 when his office clerk obtained new password from regular CA of assessee on log in ITBA portal, they realized that NFAC/Ld.CIT(A) has already passed order on 02.06.2023 in the present appeal. On coming to know about passing the impugned order, the present appeal was filed immediately before Tribunal. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal occurred due to frequent changing of password by regular CA of assessee and there is no wilful or deliberate negligent on the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal as the assessee in the present appeal has shown capital gain and on similar script as involved in case of Sanjaykumar Damjibhai Gangani. The grounds of appeal and facts are similar except variation of disallowance of long term capital gain. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities as well as facts of the appeal in ITA Nos. 15 16/SRT/2024. We find that fact of the present case is identical to the facts in ITA Nos.15 16/SRT/2024. We find that in ITA Nos. 15 16/SRT/2024, today we have passed the following order; 9. We have heard the submission of Ld.AR for the assessee and Ld. Senior Departmental-Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue. The Ld.AR for the assessee su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Ld. AR for the assessee further submits that assessee made transaction through well-known share broker. There is no allegation of assessing officer or adverse finding against the broker of assessee or against the assessee, in alleged price manipulation and no adverse materials were found. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer has made addition without giving any adverse finding on the evidences furnished by the assessee or bringing any adverse materials against evidence furnished by assessee and assessee has fully discharged her onus in proving the genuineness of such transaction. To support his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: Damodar Jajoo vs ITO in ITA No. 183-184/Srt/2021 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bted the transaction of assessee on the basis of report of Investigation Wing Kolkata. We find that merely because there was allegation and investigation was done by SEBI against the company and assessee cannot be said to have enter into ingenuine transactions. So far as assessee is concerned, she has no control over the activities of the brokers or price manipulation. We further find that during assessment the assessee has furnished complete evidence including contract note of shares, demat details, detail of bonus shares. However, no adverse evidence was brought against such evidence. Nor the assessing officer made adverse comment on such evidences. There is no allegation of assessing officer that the broker through whom the assessee made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction. We find that assessee made sale of shares through BSE and paid security transaction tax and there is no allegation against the share broker through whom assessee has made sales that they were indulging any price manipulation. Therefore, we do not find any justification in treating the LTCG as unexplained cash credit in absence of any cogent evidence. 13. So far as reliance in case of case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj (supra) by ld CIT(A) is concerned, we find We find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Himani M. Vakil (supra) held that when the assessee proved genuineness of sale transaction by bringing on record contract notes of sale and purchase, bank statement of broker and demat account showing transfer in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
