Shobha Lodha vs. The Income Tax Officer

PDF · subscribers
TCA/157/2025HC Madras18 August 2025Bench: Honourable The CHIEF JUSTICE8 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT were based on facts. The substantial questions of law proposed by the assessee were found to be factual in nature and did not raise any question of law. The Court noted that the new ground regarding the husband's illness was not raised before the CIT(A) or the ITAT. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the appeal. The appeal was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 on March 24, 2018, declaring a total income of Rs. 1,87,050. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case under Section 147, alleging that the assessee had traded in penny scrip of M/s. Rekvina Laboratories Limited for Rs. 9,51,795 during the financial year 2015-2016, which was not reported. The assessee claimed the transaction was exempt as Long Term Capital Gains under Section 10(38). The AO rejected this explanation and added Rs. 9,51,795 under Section 68. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, and the ITAT also dismissed the assessee's appeal. The present appeal is filed before the High Court against the ITAT's order dated April 24, 2024.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in law, the ITAT erred in disallowing the exemption claimed under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after remittance of STT on acquisition of the capital asset in adherence to Section 112A? 2. Whether, on the facts and in law, the ITAT was justified in treating the purchase and sale of shares as bogus when the transaction was carried out on a recognised stock exchange, compliant with SEBI guidelines, and supported by documentary evidence, without cogent evidence to rebut the proof furnished by the assessee? 3. Whether, on the facts and in law, the ITAT was justified in upholding the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by treating the sale proceeds as unexplained credits, despite the assessee furnishing necessary evidence? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the transaction was genuine, conducted on a recognised stock exchange, supported by contract notes, demat statements, and proof of STT remittance. The assessee also raised a new ground before the High Court that her husband's illness prevented her from producing evidence before the lower authorities. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the AO, CIT(A), and ITAT, contended that the transaction was not reported in the return, even if exempted, and that the assessee failed to produce evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction before the AO and CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 112A,Section 147,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA No.157 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-08-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN TCA No. 157 of 2025 Shobha Lodha 6C Ritherdon Avenue, Ritherdon Road, Vepery, Chennai 600007 [PAN: ADLPL5656R] Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 9(1) Wanaparthy Block II Floor Chennai, No.121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench,

Chennai,

dated

24-04-2024

passed

in ITA.No.1072/CHNY/2023 for the assessment year 2016-17. For Appellant : Mr.Prince Simon ____________ Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 02:05:27 pm ) TCA No.157 of 2025 JUDGMENT (Order of the Court was made by SUNDER MOHAN, J) The Tax Case Appeal impugns the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the ITAT') “B” Bench, Chennai. 2. The appeal arises under the following circumstances. (a) The assessee/appellant, an individual, filed the return of income on 24.03.2018 for the Assessment Year 2016-17, declaring a total income of Rs.1,87,050/-. (b) The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] stating that the assessee/appellant had traded in a penny scrip under the name of M/s.Rekvina Laboratories Limited, to the tune of Rs.9,51,795/-, for the financial year 2015-2016, which was not reported in her returns. (c) The assessee/appellant responded to the notice by stating ____________ Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 02:05:27 pm ) TCA No.157 of 2025 that the transaction was covered and exempted as Long Term Capital Gains under Section 10(38) of the Act. (d) On 30.09.2021, the Assessing Officer rejected the explanation offered by the appellant and passed an order making an addition of Rs.9,51,795/- under Section 68 of the Act. (e) The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT (A)'] rejected the grounds of appeal and upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer by the order dated 24.03.2023. (f) The ITAT also dismissed the appeal vide the impugned order. 3. The appellant had proposed the following substantial questions of law. “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in disallowing the exemption claimed by the appellant under Section 10(38) of the ____________ Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 02:05:27 pm ) TCA No.157 of 2025 Income Tax Act, 1961 after due remittance of the STT on the acquisition of the Capital Asset in adherence to Section 112A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in treating the purchase and sale of shares as bogus when the transaction was carried out on a recognised stock exchange in compliance with SEBI guidelines, and was duly supported by contract notes, demat account statements, and proof of SIT remittance in adherence to Securities Transaction Tax Rules, 2004, without any cogent evidence to rebut the documentary proof furnished by the appellant? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in upholding the addition made u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by treating the sale proceeds of impugned equity shares as unexplained credits, despite the appellant furnishing all necessary evidence to establish the nature and source of the sale transaction? 4. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the ITAT had confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) and held that the said amount of Rs.9,51,795/- has to be treated as 'income from other sources' and assessed under Section 68 of the Act. The ITAT also noted that the assessee/appellant did not produce any ____________ Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 02:05:27 pm ) TCA No.157 of 2025 evidence either before the Assessing Officer or before the CIT(A) to show that it was a genuine transaction. 5. The CIT(A) found that the assessee/appellant had purchased the shares in cash; that she had not shown these transactions in her return of income and claimed it to be exempted under Section 10(38) of the Act; that the assessee/appellant ought to have shown the said transaction in her return of income, even if it was exempted; that the assessee/appellant had not traded in any other shares; and that there were other circumstances to disbelieve the appellant's case. The CIT(A) also found that though sufficient opportunity was given to the assessee/appellant to prove that it was a genuine transaction, the appellant failed to produce any evidence. 6. The only ground raised by the assessee/appellant before us is that since her husband was bedridden, she was unable to produce the evidence before the Assessing Officer. However, we find that ____________ Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 02:05:27 pm ) TCA No.157 of 2025 no such ground was raised either before the CIT(A) or before the ITAT. 7. In any case, the findings of the CIT(A) and the ITAT are on facts. The substantial questions of law proposed do not raise any question of law and are factual. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal. Accordingly, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (SUNDER MOHAN,J)

18.08.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No ars To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench 'B', Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Officer Non-Corporate Ward 9(1) Wanaparthy Block II Floor Chennai, No.121 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. ____________ Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 02:05:27 pm ) TCA No.157 of 2025

____________ Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 02:05:27 pm ) TCA No.157 of 2025 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND SUNDER MOHAN,J. ars

TCA No.157 of 2025

18.08.2025 ____________ Page 8 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/08/2025 02:05:27 pm )

More judgments on Section 10(38)

All 3,113 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10(38) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →