PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. RITU AGARWAL SHREERAM BHAWAN,

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 54/2021 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus Ritu Agarwal Shreeram Bhawan, N.H.-5, Dahanigaria, Charampa, Bhadrak-756101, Orissa (India) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 10/05/2022 1. Present appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, ’the Act’) against the order dated 18.11.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short “ITAT”), Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in ITA No. 188/JP/2020 for assessment year 2014-15, on following substantial questions of law:- “I) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the Learned ITAT is justified in allowing exemption of Rs. 14431115/- claimed by the assessee u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961, which was disallowed by the A.O. on the basis of evidence received from investigation wing treating sale of shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd., as bogus and thereby considering the same as income from other sources? II) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Learned ITAT, Jaipur is justified in deleting the addition made by the A.O. on account of notional commission of Rs. 288622/-,

(2 of 4) [ITA-54/2021] which was paid for obtaining accommodation entry in form of exempted long term capital gain u/s 10(38)?” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that reasoning adopted by learned Assessing Officer as well as CIT appeals, is fully justified and by way of detailed order it has been held that the respondents are not entitled for claim of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act. The respondents have failed to submit evidences before the Investigation Wing whereby it was held that transaction entered by the respondents for purchase and sale of shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. Are found to be bogus as the said company accommodated bogus entries. It was a big racket on pan India basis which was in operation. The transactions of purchase and sale of shares were made on consequential capital gain only on papers. 3. On going through the contents of the order of learned ITAT dated 18.11.2020, it is established that before rendering the judgment the learned ITAT has considered entire facts of the case, and has given a categorical finding that in the case in hand the assessee produced all the documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of transaction. The learned Assessing Officer as per the learned ITAT has failed to produce the contrary material evidences to rebut the claim of the assessee and documents produced by him. Learned ITAT has considered the bank statement, demat account, books of account, contract notes which were external documents and were not in the control of the assessee and therefore the claim of manipulation and for treating the transaction in question is as sham and bogus were not proven and hence untenable.

(3 of 4) [ITA-54/2021] 4. Learned ITAT has also distinguished the judgments relied upon by revenue by holding that case in hand was not the case of involving transaction of purchase and sale of shares in single scrip, but assessee was holding shares of 12 companies out of which AO has only doubted one scrip and therefore they relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Suman Poddar Vs. ITO: 112 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi) was distinguishable. 5. Learned ITAT has also relied upon the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur Vs. Smit Pooja Agarwal: 2018 (99) taxmann.com 451 (Raj.). 6. On perusal of the order of learned ITAT and reasonings given therein this court is of the view that the substantial questions of law, formulated above does not arise as learned ITAT has logically dealt questions of fact and law involved by way of reasoned order. 7. Placing reliance upon the Apex Court judgment of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Designated Authority, Directorate General of Anit Dumping & Allied Duties and Ors.:2017 (349) E.L.T 193 (SC), wherein the question of admission of an appeal, on substantial question of law was considered and it was held as under:- “(i) The question raised must involve a substantial question of law which has not been answered or, on which, there is a conflict of decisions necessitating a resolution. (ii) If the Tribunal, on consideration of the material and relevant facts, had arrived at a conclusion which is a possible conclusion, the same must be allowed to rest even if this Court is inclined to take another view of the matter.

(4 of 4) [ITA-54/2021] (iii) The Tribunal had acted in gross violation of the procedure or principles of natural justice occasioning a failure of justice. 8. We are of the view that learned ITAT has passed the order on consideration of material and relevant facts, logical conclusion has been arrived at and the same must be allowed to rest. There is no gross violation of principles of natural justice or failure of justice, no error has crept in the order impugned of learned ITAT. The Coordinate Bench of this court in D. B. IT Appeal No. 22/2021 titled as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur Vs. Shri Sanjay Chhabra, in the similar facts and circumstances has already taken a view that in the appeal at hand under Section 260A of the Act no substantial question of law arises. 9. In the light of above discussions, the present appeal under Section 260A of the Act does not call for interference and is hereby dismissed as no substantial question of law arises worth consideration. (SAMEER JAIN),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J Pooja /13