RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGHANIA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 31(1),, KOLKATA

आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ADDL/JCIT(A), THANE [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] in appeal no.CIT(A), Kolkata-9/10465/2016-17 dated 06.01.2026. 2. Smt. Sweta Singhania, CA, represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri Manas Mondal, Sr. DR represented on behalf of the revenue.

2 ITANo.428/Kol/2026 Auto Finance Ltd. It was the submission that subsequently, the shares of M/s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. were sold for a consideration of Rs.18,91,500/- and an income of Rs.18,36,800/- after setting off transfer expenses was claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. It was the submission that Coordinate Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shashi Kala Agarwal in ITA No.301/CTK/2019 and ITA No.31/CTK/2020 and ITA No.302/CTK/2019 and ITA No.32/CTK/2020 dated 30.05.2022 in paras 8 & 9 held as follows: “8. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order in the present case clearly shows that there was a survey in the business premises of M/s. Sonthalia Rice Mills Group and the assessees herein are partners in the said Group. In the course of survey, statements have been recorded in respect of share transactions of KAFL as also IPO in respect of GCM Securities. Copy of the statement was attached with the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue, wherein, in reply to Q. No.12, Shri Ashwin Agarwal has categorically stated that the transaction is not bogus capital gains and he has made profit from the trading of shares, which he also disclosed in the return of income. A perusal of the assessment further shows that though there is partial reference to the statement recorded in the course of survey, the substantial portion of the reasoning for the addition, most specifically, denial of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act are the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing from the shares brokers and entry operators. Admittedly, the statement has not been given to the assessee for cross examination. Though the revenue has taken the stand that the cross examination could not be given to the assessee, we are unable to agree with the same in so far as if any evidence, in any manner, is to be used against the assessee in the course of an assessment of an assessee, such evidence shall be put to the assessee for his rebuttal and if necessary the cross examination. This is the basic principle of natural justice. Just because an assessee, in the course of statement recorded, agreed to offer income which is otherwise eligible for exemption, it does not mean that the assessee can be compelled to withdraw his claim of exemption or be denied his rightful claim of exemption. An exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act is eligible to an assessee if the criterion required for such exemption is met by the transaction which has resulted income in the hands of the assessee. This cannot be denied to an assessee just because he has not claimed it nor just because agreed not to claim it. An exemption otherwise is allowable to the assessee cannot be even surrendered by an assessee. What is due to the assessee, it is the duty of the Income Tax Officer to grant to the assessee. An Income Tax Officer is not just revenue collector, he is known as Assessing Officer. He

3 ITANo.428/Kol/2026 is to accesses the correct income and brings to tax the correct income. It is his duty of assessing the correct income after granting the benefit due to an assessee. For repetition sake, the Income Tax Officer is known as Assessing Authority not a Taxing Authority. 9. Coming to the transaction of the shares dealt by the assessee, it is noticed that the ld CIT(A) has considered the fact that the assessee has received payments through banking channel, the transactions are through Demat account and through a recognized stock exchange and paying securities transaction tax(STT). Thus, all the conditions required for grant of exemption u/s.10(38) stands fully complied with in the case of the assessee in respect of shares of KAFL and GCM Securities. Further perusal of the order of CIT(A) clearly shows that he has followed judicial discipline in following the decisions of Co-ordinate Benches of the Kolkata and Delhi Tribunal in respect of said shares. This being so, the revenue has not been able to point out any specific defect in the order of the CIT(A), which calls for any interference by this Tribunal. In such circumstances, the findings of the ld CIT(A) stands confirmed. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed.”

4 ITANo.428/Kol/2026 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/05/2026.

Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यधनयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 04/05/2026 RS आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent- 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

सत्यापपत प्रतत //True Copy// आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,

(Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata