ITO -33(2)(5), MUMBAI vs. PARUL RAICHURA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6583/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 January 2022AY 2014-152 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the determined amount. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was treated as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order deleting additions made on account of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) and commission paid on share transfers. The assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and paid the determined amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal against the deletion of additions related to LTCG and commission on share transfers is to be dismissed as withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Atul Richura
For Respondent: Shri T. Sankar
Hearing: 27.12.2021Pronounced: 06.01.2022

This is an appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of ld CIT(A) dated 12.7.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal

read as under :-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of LTCG under section 68 on transfer of listed securities on recognized stock exchange amounting to Rs. 38,32,009/-.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of commission paid on transfer of shares under section. 69C of the Act without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company earned the abnormal profit which was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance without appreciating the fact that it was the finding of the Investigation Wing Kolkata that the sale purchase transaction routed through stock exchange with the main intent of providing bogus LTCG to the assessee, one of the beneficiaries of obtaining bogus LTCG entries to be exempt in the return of income filed by the assessee.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Bimalchand Jain clearly stated that the authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain.

5. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored.

3.

At the outset ld counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee has opted for resolution of dispute under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and has paid the determined amount. In this regard the assessee has also provided Form No. 5 dated 26.5.2021.

4.

Ld Departmental Representative does not have any objection in this regard. Since the assessee has paid determined amount under dispute resolution scheme, we treat the Revenue’s appeal as withdrawn as per scheme. Hence, this Revenue’s appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →