Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar
order : January 19, 2023 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata dated 18.04.2018 passed for A.Y. 2014-15.
The assessee has taken five grounds of appeal. In Ground No. 1, she has submitted that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.69,57,000/-, which was added by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 1
Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar 68 of the Income Tax Act. In Ground No. 2, she has pleaded that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,66,794/- and in Ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged charging of interest under section 234A & 234B of the Income Tax Act. In Grounds No. 4 & 5, the assessee has raised supporting argument qua earlier three grounds of appeal.
3. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. A perusal of the assessment record would reveal that assesese has filed her original return of income on 19.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.3,09,070/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that assessee has earned capital gain from sale of shares of M/s. Unno Industries Limited to the tune of Rs.66,71,743/-. She has purchased these shares for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- and sold them for a consideration of Rs.69,57,000/-. Thus she claimed exempt income under section 10(38) of Rs.66,71,743/-. Apart from these, there were certain other small activities. The ld. Assessing Officer has noticed that there is a jump of almost 2669 percent in a span of 29 months in the value of such shares. Hence, he made a detailed analysis and held that it is a bogus penny stock held by the assessee and the game is stage managed. The ld. Assessing Officer has recorded a detailed finding and made the addition of Rs.69,57,000/-.
On appeal, the ld. 1st Appellate Authority has reproduced the assessment order and thereafter recorded the following finding:-
Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar
With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that both the authorities have recorded exhaustive finding of fact narrating the circumstances as to how investment made by the assessee in the shares of M/s. Unno Industries Limited was a bogus penny stock company, which has artificially enhanced the value of shares in a short span of time. This aspect is fully covered by the latest decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of Swati Bajaj & Others (2022) 139 taxmann.com 352(Cal.) pronounced on 14.06.2022. We respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal, hence, it is rejected.
6. As far as Ground No. 2 is concerned, the ld. Assessing Officer has estimated payment of commission for getting bogus long-term capital gain @ 2.5% and he worked out such commission at Rs.1,66,794/-. Since we have confirmed the conclusions of the revenue authorities that the total claim of long-term capital gain was a bogus one, therefore, this commission payment is also to be disallowed and required to be added back. The ld. Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition, which has been confirmed by the ld.
Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Neelam Dugar 1st Appellate Authority. We do not find any merit in this ground of appeal also. It is rejected.
7. As far as Ground No. 3 is concerned, charging of interest under section 234A and 234B is consequential in nature to the first ground of appeal, which we have already decided.