9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use investigation was done by SEBI against the broker or its activities, the assessee cannot be said to have entered into ingenuine 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 no justification in treating the LTCG as unexplained cash credit in absence of any cogent evidence. Addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted. Have accepted the LTCG by deleting the addition made u/s 68, therefore the addition of alleged commission payment is also deleted. Addition of commissions expenses @5% u/s 69A - We find that the assessing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,26,316/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act, which is presumed to have been incurred @ 5% of above LTCG, whereas there has not been an iota of finding or lawful basis for assuming the genuine LTCG earned by appellant as 'arranged' nor there has been any finding of incurring of any such unexplained expenditure by the appellant. Addition so made and sustained is grossly wrong and unjustified. Appellant prays for deleting the same. 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify any ground of appeal." 2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present appeal is identical to the grounds of appeal raised in appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 except the figure of consideration of long term capital gain/share transaction. We find that Ground No.1 of the present appeal is similar with the Ground No. 1 of appeal for AY 2014-15. We further find on similar set of facts, SMC Bench of this Tribunal in ITA No. 197/Srt/2023 for the A.Y. 2014-15 dated 17/08/2023 passed the following order: "9. I have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the order of lower authorities carefully. I find that the Assessing Officer doubted the transaction of assessee on the basis of report of Investigation Wing Kolkata. I further find that SEBI has initiated investigation in respect of Mishka Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome Tax Authority and the Tribunal have also took the notice of fact that the shares remained in the account of assessee, the assessee also furnished demat account and details of bank transaction about the sale and purchase of shares, the addition was deleted. 11. Further I find of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Indravadan Jain, HUF (supra) in Income Tax Appeal No.454 of 2018 dated 12.07.2023 also held that when Assessing Officer nowhere alleged that transactions made by assessee with a particular broker or share broker was bogus, merely because investigation was done by SEBI against the broker or its activities, the assessee cannot be said to have entered into ingenuine transaction. 12. I find that assessee mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
