MANISH GARG HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 40(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1907/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 December 2020AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's case was covered by the Delhi High Court's decision declaring the company as bogus. Given the assessee's non-appearance and intention to settle, the appeal was treated as dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(38) for sale of shares, which was added back by the AO under Section 68. The assessee failed to appear for hearings and expressed an intention to settle under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.

What were the issues?

Whether the claim for exemption under Section 10(38) for sale of shares is valid when the company is deemed bogus, and whether the appeal should be dismissed due to non-appearance and intent to settle.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHUSHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R.;
Hearing: 21/12/2020Pronounced: 21/12/2020

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2015-16, dated 7.02.2019 wherein claim under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) of Rs.2,22,87,246/- on account of sale of shares of M/s KAPPAC Pharma Ltd. was added under Section 68 of the Act and benefit under Section 10(38) of the Act is denied.

2. The appeal was called for hearing on 21st December, 2020 where none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On earlier occasion on 1.12.2020 also none appeared. 3. On the merits case of the assessee is covered against him by the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Udit Kalra vs. ITO [2019 (4) TMI 834 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein has declared M/s Kappac Pharma as bogus company who made only accommodation entries in which the assessee is a beneficiary. This is also followed by many decisions of coordinate benches holding against assessee.

4.

The assessee has submitted a letter dated 12th March, 2020 under the signature of his Chartered Accountant Mr. Vikas Gupta that assessee is contemplating the option of Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. It was stated that at that particular time when this letter was given the Scheme was yet to be announced. Now despite notices the assessee is not appearing. The assessee has also disclosed his intention through his CA to settle the dispute under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. As the assessee would like to opt for the above Scheme and to settle the impugned dispute, the appeal of the assessee is technically treated as withdrawn and dismissed.

2.

Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is treated as dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the assessee that in case assessee is not granted Form No. 3 under the above Scheme for settlement of the above dispute, he may file an application for recall of the above order. Meanwhile, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on : 21/12/2020.

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 →