RAJESH SHANABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

There is a delay of 10 days in filing the present appeal, the same is condoned.

At the time of hearing, the assessee’s representative has filed the adjournment application dated 04-07-2025 but none appeared on the hearing date mentioned hereinabove. Eight adjournments have been granted but despite the earlier 2 Rajesh Shanabhai Patel, A.Y. 2012-13 adjournments, the assessee or assessee’s representative are not appeared on the date of hearing on earlier occasions. Thus, adjournment application is rejected. There is a written submission along with documents filed by the assessee on 16- 10-2024 and therefore we are proceeding on the same basis.

The ld. D.R. submitted that the addition on account of long term capital gain on sale of share of penny scrip Dhvanil Chemical Ltd. as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 is rightly done by the Assessing Officer. The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT(A)

We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused all the relevant material available on record including the written submissions and documents filed by the assessee, (ITR and computation of income, share purchase and sale details as well as bank statement). From the perusal of the assessment order in para 10.7, the Assessing Officer is only citing that the transactions entered into by the assessee in the shares of Dhvanil Chemicals Ltd. but the Assessing Officer has not given the details as to how the assessee is co-related or involved in the price variation/manipulation of the said scrip. The Assessing Officer has also not given details as to how the claim of Long Term Capital Gain is not proper. The assessee has given the details in the original return of income as well as the return of income filed u/s. 148 of the Act related to the exempt long term capital gain on which the assessee has paid the Security Transaction Tax (STT). From the perusal of the purchase and sale of shares details annexed to the assessee’s paper book, it is Rajesh Shanabhai Patel, A.Y. 2012-13 seen that the assessee has purchased the shares on 23-06- 2009 at the cost of Rs. 17,800/- in total and sold the same on 11-07-2011 at 9,80,780/- and 4000 shares were purchased on 23-06-2009 at the purchase value of Rs. 4000 and sold on 14-07-2011 for sale value of Rs. 2,46,000/-. The documents given by the assessee are reflecting source of payment of purchase price and the details of the broker contract note that the sale of the share as well as the purchase of the shares. Thus, the assessee has given the details which was not at all considered either by the Assessing Officer as well as the by the CIT(A). Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.