HASMUKHBHAI B. PATEL HUF ,MUMBAI vs. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the separate impugned orders of even date 06/02/2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14, 2014–15 and 2015–16.

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16

“The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another :

1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of A.O. in making additions in the appellant's case in the absence of any incriminating material found, as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in treating the long term capital gains earned by the appellant as non-genuine and bogus transaction, as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise.

3. On the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim u/s 10(38) of the Act being Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares listed on Stock Exchange.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, LD. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.8,98,43,280/- by invoking the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being the amount of sale value of shares without allowing the deduction in respect of the purchases cost amounting to Rs. 48,55,722/-as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.24,55,549/- as alleged commission @ 3% paid on bogus share transaction, as per the founds stated in the order or otherwise."

6. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting deduction of L.T.CAPITAL GAINS U/S 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 8,18,51,631/-;

7. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting Cost of purchase of shares of Rs. 48,55,722/- as deduction from LT.C.GAINS, as per the calculations submitted;

8. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in leaving Interest u/s 234B and 234C of Rs.2,23,14,285/- and Rs. 2,672/- respectively;

9. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961”

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 4. Ground no.1, raised in assessee’s appeal, was not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not pressed.

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 dematerialised. Out of the aforesaid shareholding, the assessee sold 8,25,000 equity shares in the year under consideration and earned long-term capital gains of Rs.2,36,72,901. The assessee further submitted that the purchase consideration was duly paid through proper banking channels and thus the entire transaction is genuine. The sale was on the recognized stock exchange on various dates via recognised brokers and the sale consideration was also rooted through recognised stock exchange and Securities Transaction Tax (“STT”) was duly paid on the same. As regards Splash Media, the assessee submitted that it purchased 30,000 shares for a consideration of Rs.21,34,516, from the recognised stock exchange, having a face value of Rs.10, per share in May 2008. Subsequently, the company issued 90,000 bonus shares on 30/12/2009. Thereafter, the company split its shares of face value of Rs.10, to Re.1, due to which the assessee got 12,00,000 equity shares of Splash Media. It was also submitted that the assessee purchased 35,000 equity shares of Splash Media on 21/03/2011, for a consideration of Rs.13,09,000, from the stock market and sold the same for a consideration of Rs.13,09,000. The assessee further submitted that during the year in total it sold 12,35,000 equity shares of Splash Media and earned long-term capital gains of Rs.5,81,79,330. It was further submitted that the entire transaction was through proper banking channels and the investment activity is not an isolated transaction made to allegedly convert the unaccounted income into genuine money. In order to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction, the assessee submitted various documentary evidence as noted on pages 23-25 of the assessment order. Accordingly, the assessee submitted that the sale proceeds credited in its bank accounts should not be treated as undisclosed income and exemption as claimed under section 10(38) of the Act be allowed.

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 assessee is having its Demat account with M/s Comfort Securities Ltd. The company Comfort Intech Ltd, M/s Comfort Securities Ltd, and Splash Media and Infra Ltd, all are controlled and managed by Mr. Anil Agarwal, who in his statement admitted that he has provided bogus long-term capital gain/short- term capital loss entry to the beneficiaries through M/s Comfort Securities Ltd. The AO further noted that out of 93 exit providers in the case of scrip of Splash Media, notices sent to 24 entities under section 133(6) of the Act were returned unserved with remarks unknown/left. Accordingly, the AO treated the share transaction by the assessee as bogus and added the entire sale consideration of Rs.8,67,07,353, to the total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The AO further made an addition on account of commission @ 3% to obtain the pre-arranged bogus long-term capital gains, which comes to Rs.24,55,549, under section 69C of the Act.

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 in May 2008 via preferential allotment basis at a face value of Rs.10, for a total consideration of Rs.85,55,000, which subsequent to splitting the face value from Rs.10, to Re.1, by the company were increased to 50,00,000 shares. Out of the aforesaid shareholding, the assessee during the year under consideration between 05/04/2010 and 14/05/2010 sold 8,25,000 equity shares at an average rate of Rs.30.41, and earned long-term capital gains of Rs.2,36,72,901. Further, the assessee purchased 30,000 shares of Splash Media from the recognised stock exchange for a total consideration of Rs.21,34,516, in May 2008 at an average rate of Rs.71.15, per share. Further, the company issued 90,000 bonus shares on 30/12/2009, and the entire shareholding was increased to 12,00,000 equity shares since the face value was split from Rs.10, to Re.1. Thereafter, the assessee purchased 35,000 equity shares of Splash Media on 21/03/2011, for a consideration of Rs.13,09,000, from the stock market, which were sold for the same consideration. Out of the aforesaid shareholding, the assessee during the year under consideration between 08/12/2010 and 29/03/2011 sold 12,35,000 equity shares at an average rate of Rs.49.89, and earned long-term capital gains of Rs.5,81,79,330. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the Revenue.

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 Investigation Wing without any adverse observation regarding the assessee. The price fluctuation of shares of the entities in which the assessee has transacted also does not support the case of the Revenue, as no material has been brought on record to show that the assessee was involved in such price manipulation.

“Q8 Please explain the modus operandi of the bogus LTCG/STCL entry obtained by the beneficiaries. Ans. Sir, the bogus LTCG entry beneficiary approaches an entry operator who is having a listed company through some agent/mediator or directly. These listed companies are penny stock companies, having no actual business and having a closed share holding pattern. Thereafter, the beneficiary on instruction of the operator, purchases the shares of these penny stock companies at a very low price. The purchase is usually through the route of private placement Le. preferential allotment. Once the preferential share allotment is complete, the operator riggs the price of the penny stock through circular transactions and thus the price of the penny stock is increased. Once a period of one year is over from the purchase of the shares (pre-requisite for claiming exempt LTCG) and the price of the stock reaches the desired level, the beneficiary is intimated by the operator/agent of the operator to provide cash, which can be routed to some other paper/bogus entities to buy these shares from the beneficiary. The entry operator then routes and layers back this cash so received into various paper entities which are controlled and managed by him. These paper entities, which have received layered money are then used as a dummy buyer for buying the rigged/artificially jagged up shares from the beneficiaries. When the buyers are ready, then the entry operator intimates the beneficiaries to sell specific number of shares at a specific price at a specific time. This ensures that the shares of only the beneficiaries are purchased by the dummy buyers. The transactions take place through the stock exchange and brokers and some nominal commission is charged in cash on the net pre-arranged bogus LTCG accruing to the beneficiary. This pre-arranged bogus Capital gain income so earned through rigging of shares is claimed as exempt in the books of the beneficiary. In the same price, book bogus Short term capital Loss by selling the shares when the prices fall. Q9 Please explain in detail about your role in providing bogus LTCG to the beneficiaries of the scrips Radford Global Limited, First Financial Services Limited and Rutron International Limited. Ans. Sir, I knew three persons, namely, Shri Paras Chaplot, Shri Pankaj Shah and Shri Vijay Jain, of Mumbai, who are primarily involved in the business of providing entry of LTCG. I knew the directors of M/s Rutron International Limited and M/s First Financial Services limited and introduced them to Shri Paras Chaplot, Shri Pankaj Shah and Shri Vijay Jain. I also came to know that M/s.Radford Global Limited is also one such penny stock company which was operated by Shri Paras Chaplot, Shri Pankaj Shah and Shri Vijay Jain. Some clients contacted me for availing the entry of LTCG and I introduced them to Shri Paras Chaplot, Shri Pankaj Shah and Shri Vijay Jain. Thereafter, as per the modus operandi, the beneficiaries invested in the penny stock of M/s Radford Global Limited, M/s Rutron International Limited and M/s First Financial Services Limited. The Page | 7

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 shares of these companies were rigged and the price was increased to desired level over a desired period. Once the prices of the shares reached their peak price, the sale of the above mentioned scrips was arranged by Shri Paras Chaplot, Shri Pankaj Shah and Shri Vijay Jain so as to provide entry of LTCG to the beneficiaries. In this process some of the entities were given entry of Short Term capital Loss also. Q10 Please explain the role of M/s Comfort Securities Limited in providing LTCG to the beneficiaries of the scrips Radford Global Limited, First Financial Services Limited and Rutron International Limited. Ans. Sir, Shri Paras Chaplot, Shri Pankaj Shah and Shri Vijay Jain introduced some clients to Comfort Securities Limited. These entities became clients of comfort Securities Limited and traded in the shares of M/s Radford Global Limited, Rutron International Limited and First Financial Services Limited. Q11 Were KYC verifications conducted in the case of these clients? Ans. Sir, as these clients were introduced by Shri Paras Chaplot, Shri Pankaj Shah and Shri Vijay Jain, we have obtained KYC documents of the clients and allowed them to trade through Comfort Securities Limited but we have not done any physical verification of the premises. Q12 What is the income that you have earned from the transactions in the above mentioned scrips? Ans. Sir, I have earned brokerage income from the transactions in the above mentioned scrips. Apart from the regular brokerage income in M/s Comfort Securities Limited, I have also earned roughly around Rs.20,00,000/- of the transactions in the above mentioned scrips as cash commission which I am offering as my undisclosed income over and above my regular source of income."

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 in this racket. From the perusal of the assessee’s submission dated 19/12/2017, filed before the AO, forming part of the paper book from pages 217-240, we find that the assessee specifically requested the AO to provide the details of the brokers who have given a statement that the assessee has taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus long-term capital gains. Further, the assessee also requested for the statements recorded by the Revenue, which was alleged to have been provided in the pen drive as noted in the show cause notice reproduced from pages 2-21 of the assessment order. However, as evident from the record no such statement was furnished by the Revenue. Even during the hearing before us, the Revenue has not brought any such statement on record. Therefore, the nexus of any tainted investor/exit provider/entry provider with the assessee is not established by the Revenue in the present case.

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 case, the Revenue has failed to prove with any cogent evidence on record that the assessee was involved in converting its unaccounted money into long-term capital gains by conniving with any entry operator/exit operator, who was involved in artificial price rigging of shares. Thus this is the case wherein the AO merely on the basis of suspicion rejected the claim of the assessee, without establishing any link between the assessee with the entry operators/exit operators, who were allegedly involved in price rigging of shares. Therefore, in view of the above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the conclusion reached by the Revenue on the basis of the findings recorded in the order passed by the lower authorities. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition made under section 68 of the Act and accept the plea of the assessee in respect of long-term capital gains earned during the year. Since the main transaction has not been found to be bogus, the addition on account of commission @ 3% made by the AO and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is also deleted. As a result, grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed.

“The following are the grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one other: - Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 which is merely due to change of opinion and therefore the reopening is bad in law.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in reopening the assessment u/s 147 by issue of notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2019 which is barred by limitation in view of the first proviso to section 147 of Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Id. A.0.erred in holding that the transaction of purchase and subsequent sale of shares of M/s. Comfort Intech Limited as non-genuine and bogus for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise and confirmed by the Honorable CIT(A); 4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Id. A.O. erred in disallowing the claim of short term capital loss of Rs. 24,18,648/- arising out of sale of shares of M/s. Comfort Intech Limited by treating the same as non-genuine for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise and confirmed by the Honorable CIT(A); 5. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Id. A.O. erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,11,78,257/-being sale proceeds on sale of shares of M/s. Comfort Intech Limited by provision of section 68 of the Act and and confirmed by the Honorable CIT(A); 6. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Id. A.O. erred in holding that the transaction of purchase of shares of M/s. Rutron International Ltd is non-genuine and bogus for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise and and confirmed by the Honorable CIT(A); 7. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. A.O. erred in making an addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- being the purchase amount for shares of M/s. Rutron International Ltd by invoking the provision of section 69 of the Act, even than these shares were acquired & held in Demat Account of your Appellant and and confirmed by the Honorable CIT(A); 8. The Appellant craves leaves to alter, amend, withdraw or substitute any ground or grounds or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal on or before the hearing. The Appellant prays your Honour to delete the additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer in the impugned order.”

21. Grounds no.1 and 2, raised in assessee’s appeal, challenging the reopening of assessment section 147 of the Act were not pressed during the hearing. Accordingly, the same are dismissed as not pressed.

22. The issue arising in grounds no.3-5, raised in assessee’s appeal, is pertaining to the disallowance of exemption of long-term capital gains claimed under section 10(38) of the Act by treating the share transaction as non- genuine and making the addition under section 68 of the Act.

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 23. Similar to the assessment year 2011-12, this year the Revenue relied on similar material as was relied in the preceding assessment year to hold that short-term capital loss claimed as exempt by the assessee from the sale of shares in Comfort Intech Ltd is bogus. In this year also, the Revenue has failed to prove with any cogent evidence on record that the assessee was involved in converting its unaccounted money into short-term capital loss by conniving with any entry operator/exit operator, who was involved in artificial price rigging of shares. Therefore, our findings/conclusions as rendered in the assessment year 2011-12 are applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition made under section 68 of the Act and accept the plea of the assessee in respect of short-term capital loss. As a result, grounds no.3-5, raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed.

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act made the addition of the entire consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000, under section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us.

“The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another: Page | 13

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16

1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of A.O. in making additions in the appellant's case in the absence of any incriminating material found as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in treating the long term capital gains earned by the appellant as non-genuine and bogus transaction, as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim u/s 10(38) of Rs. 93,41,134/- of the Act being Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares listed on Stock Exchange. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, LD. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,00,41,133/- by invoking the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being the amount of sale value of shares without allowing the deduction in respect of the purchases cost amounting to Rs. 7,00,000/- as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 2,80,234/- as alleged commission @ 3% paid on bogus share transaction, as per the founds stated in the order or otherwise. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting deduction of L.T.CAPITAL GAINS U/S 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 93,41,134/-; 7. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting Cost of purchase of shares of Rs. 7,00,000/- as deduction from LTC GAINS, as per the calculations submitted; 8. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in leaving Interest u/s 234B of Rs.18,17,901/-;

9. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 First Financial Services Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs.75 lakh having a face value of Rs.10, per share and a premium of Rs.10, per share on 05/12/2011, on a preferential allotment basis. In the year under consideration, the assessee sold 35,000 equity shares of M/s.First Financial Services Ltd. at an average rate of Rs.286.89. per equity share and earned long-term capital gains of Rs.93,41,133. The AO vide assessment order dated 28/12/2017, passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act treated the transaction as bogus and made the addition of the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,41,00,133, under section 68 by treating the same as unexplained cash credit on the basis that the net worth of this company is negligible as per its financials but the share price was rigged to an astronomical level. The AO also placed reliance upon the statement of Mr. Anil Agarwal who admitted that the scrips of this company were, inter-alia, used to provide bogus long-term capital gains to beneficiaries. The AO further made an addition on account of commission @ 3% to obtain the pre-arranged bogus long-term capital gains, which comes to Rs.2,80,234, under section 69C of the Act. The learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the ground raised by the assessee on this issue. The learned CIT(A) on page 51 of the impugned order also placed reliance upon the order dated 11/08/2015, passed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”) wherein it was held that share prices of M/s First Financial Services Ltd were manipulated.

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 the SEBI vide aforesaid Adjudication Order found various other entities, including Mr. Anil Agarwal, on whose statement the AO has placed reliance for treating the impugned transaction as bogus, to be involved in jacking up the price artificially of the scrip of M/s.First Financial Services Ltd. and accordingly found them to have violated the aforesaid SEBI Regulations and Act. Thus, it is evident that the transaction of the assessee in the scrips of M/s.First Financial Services Ltd. has been found to be not violative of the provisions of the relevant Act and Regulations by the SEBI upon necessary investigation and the assessee was held to be not involved in price rigging. Therefore, in view of the above, we find no basis in sustaining the impugned addition made by the AO by treating the said transaction to be for obtaining bogus long-term capital gains. Accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the impugned addition made under section 68 of the Act and accept the plea of the assessee in respect of long-term capital gains earned during the year. Since the main transaction has not been found to be bogus, the addition on account of commission @ 3% made by the AO and upheld by the learned CIT(A) is also deleted. As a result, grounds no.2-6, raised in assessee’s appeal are allowed.

ITAs no.702/Mum./2023 and 703/Mum./2023 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2014–15 and 2015-16 37. In the appeal for the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee has raised the following grounds:–

“The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another: Page | 16

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16

2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in treating the long term capital gains earned by the appellant as non-genuine and bogus transaction, as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 3. On the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim u/s 10(38) of the Act being Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares listed on Stock Exchange. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, LD. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,10,29,789/- by invoking the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being the amount of sale value of shares without allowing the deduction in respect of the purchases cost amounting to Rs. 28,31,000/- and other incidental charges of Rs.3,71,285/- as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.2,40,687/- as alleged commission @ 3% paid on bogus share transaction, as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting deduction of L.T. CAPITAL GAINS U/S 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 of Rs. 80,22,789/-; 7. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in not granting Cost of purchase of shares of Rs. 28,31,000/- and other incidental charges of Rs.3,71,285/- as deduction from L.T.C.GAINS, as per the calculations submitted; 8. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in leaving Interest u/s 234B of Rs.16,92,315/-; 9. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirmation the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing notice u/s 271(1)© of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

“The following grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of A.O. in making additions in the appellant's case in the absence of any incriminating material found, as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in treating the long term capital gains earned by the appellant as non-genuine and bogus transaction, as per the grounds stated in the order or otherwise. Page | 17

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16

3. On the facts and circumstances and in law the Ld. CIT(A), erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in disallowing the claim u/s 10(38) of the Act being Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares listed on Stock Exchange.

Hasmukhbhai B. Patel (HUF) A.Y. 2011–12 to 2015–16 41. The issue pertaining to the levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C of the Act, in both appeals, is consequential in nature and therefore is allowed for statistical purposes.