9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 208X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order by explicitly dismissed these allegations. The tribunal's ruling stated that there is no supporting material on record to substantiate the accusation of the company's involvement in price inflation. Moreover, the order emphasized that purchasing shares from the stock exchange platform is not unlawful, and continuous buying of shares at increased prices does not contravene any provisions of SEBI laws, particularly the PFUTP Regulations. (APB, Pgs. 76-88). Hon ble SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Renu Aggarwal [ 2023 (7) TMI 288 - SC ORDER] dismissed the SLP filed by revenue filed against the Hon ble high court as held there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by Assessing Officer had rightly been deleted. Recently, the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Dipansu Mohapatra [ 2024 (3) TMI 217 - SC ORDER] dismissed against order of High Court that where assessee provided all details of purchase and sales of shares to AO along with contract notes for purchase and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , list of 19 scrips and the document where the name of the assessee is appearing in the list of beneficiaries 6. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on the presumption that no prejudice was caused to the assessee by not providing the material and cross examination of Raj Kumar Modi. 7. That the CIT(A) has grossly erred on law in holding that cross examination is not required under facts and circumstances of the case ignoring the fact that statement of Sh. Raj Kumar Modi is the basis for initiating re- assessment proceedings. 8. The CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that there was nothing on record to implicate the fact that the assessee was involved in getting entry after making payment in cash. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the assessment framed u/s 147 is without jurisdiction as the same has been made by relying upon the material seized from the residence of director Mr. Raj Kumar Modi of PMC Fin Corp and has failed to appreciate that in case of seized material, the proceedings should have been initiated u/s 153C of the Income Tax Act 1961. 10. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO merely on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R relies on the impugned order. 5. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material on record, impugned order, written submissions and case laws cited before us. It is seen that the AO has discussed that he has considered the submissions of the assessee however, being not satisfied based on the analysis made, held that the company, M/s PMC Fincorp Ltd. was just a colourable device to cover up the ill intention of the assessee to make her unaccounted or black money to white without paying tax, wrapping it u/s 10(38) of the Act without providing information received from wing such as investigation report, statement of Raj Kumar Modi, list of 19 scrips and the document where the name of the assessee is alleged to be appearing in the list of beneficiaries of the accommodation entries. The Ld. AR objected to the addition of Rs. 66,52,6021- u/s 68 as unexplained cash credit made by the AO based on presumption without corroborative evidence and rebuttal of material facts forming the basis to the appellant assesse. 6. It is noted that the Ld. CIT(A) rather addressing the issue on facts of the case by rebutting the contention of the appellant assessee and controverting or disproving th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is noted that the assesses has established its claim before the lower authorities, based upon the documents namely bank details, the purchase/sell documents, the details of the D-Mat Account etc. and that the appellant held the shares for a period of more than one year and sold them through recognized stock exchange and paid STT. Meaning thereby that the assesse has complied all the conditions of section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 to claim, long term capital gain of Rs. 65,01,278/- earned by the appellant was exempt as per provisions of section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and same has been duly declared in the income tax return of the assessee. 11. From the record, it is found that the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was solely based on the premise of alleged price rigging in the PMC Fin Corp script. However, this allegation is negated by the Securities Appellate Tribunal Mumbai, in its order dated August 28, 2023, by explicitly dismissed these allegations. The tribunal's ruling stated that there is no supporting material on record to substantiate the accusation of the company's involvement in price inflation. Moreover, the order emphasized that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was no evidence implicating assessee or broker in any wrongdoing related to SNCFL script - Whether in view of concurrent findings of fact that there was no evidence available on record suggesting that assessee or his broker was involved in rigging up of price of script of SNCFL, addition on account of LTCG claimed as exempt under section 10(38) had rightly been deleted - Held, yes [Paras 4 and 5] [In favour of assessee] 14. In another case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Indravan Jain, HUF [2023] 156 taxmann.com 605 (Bombay) the Hon ble HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY held as under- section 68, read with section 10(38), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit (Share transactions) - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee had claimed sale proceeds of shares as long-term capital gain (LTCG) exemption - However, Assessing Officer held that scrip was a pennystSock and thus, he made an addition of same under section 68 - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that shares were purchased on floor of stock exchange and not from broker, payment was made through banking channel, deliveries were taken in DEMAT account where shares remained for more than one year, contract notes were issued and share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
