NARRU KUMAR JHANWAR,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-35(2), KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1260/KOL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 February 2020AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities relied on circumstantial rather than actual evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-examination in light of the CBDT's latest SOP.

What were the facts?

The assessees reported long-term capital gains from share transactions. The lower authorities treated these gains as bogus unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, relying on circumstantial evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether long-term capital gains from share transactions were correctly treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68, and if the lower authorities relied on sufficient evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Sri S. S. Godara]

For Appellant: Shri P J Bhide, FCA
For Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR, Smt. Kamala Devi Jhanwar, Shri R C Jhawer, CA, Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR, Shri R C Jhawer, CA, Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR
Hearing: 29/01/2020Pronounced: 14/02/2020

Heard together (6 matters)

I.T.A No.1231/Kol/2019
I.T.A No.1258/Kol/2019
I.T.A No.1259/Kol/2019
I.T.A No.1260/Kol/2019
I.T.A No.1261/Kol/2019
I.T.A No.1262/Kol/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: These six assessees’ have filed their as many instant appeals for assessment year 2015-16 against the Commissioner of Income Tax (A)’s separate orders treating their long-term capital gains of Rs.40,20,000/-, Rs.3,59,250/-, Rs.4,49,683/-, Rs.4,48,625/-, Rs.4,50,750/- & Rs.4,49,500/-, respectively as bogus unexplained cash credits u/s 68, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) involved in such share transactions.

I have heard all these assessees as well as the Revenue. Case files perused.

2.

It transpires at the outset that the assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance in all these cases that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating their respective long-term capital gains derived from sale of various scrips involving varying sums as bogus unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that all the cogent/contemporaneous evidence duly proves genuineness and creditworthiness thereof. Learned authorized representatives also referred to the assessees’ voluminous paper-books to this effect. He further submitted that the CBDT’s recent SOP issued in the year 2019; along with annexure A-D, has directed the field authorities to carry out detailed investigations on multiple aspects.

3.

The assessees’ case accordingly is that the CBDT itself has acknowledged in SOP that such an addition has to be based on actual than circumstantial , 1258,1259,1260,1261&1262/Kol/2019 Sanjeev Bubna (HUF) & Others Assessment Year: 2015-16 evidence. The Revenue on the other hand pleaded to affirm the impugned additions, since the assessees could not prove genuineness/creditworthiness of their share transactions indicating artificial rigging of scrip prices.

1.

4. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival pleadings and on perusal of all the case files, I note that learned lower authorities’ identical findings have gone by circumstantial than actual evidence before invoking the impugned addition. I therefore deem it appropriate that the CIT(A) needs to be re- examine the entire issue afresh in all these cases in view of the CBDT’s latest “SOP”, not considered earlier as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing in consequential proceedings. These assessees’ identical sole substantive grievance is restored back to the CIT(A) therefore.

4.

Commission expenditure addition, if any, u/s 69C of the Act also follows suit.

5.

These assessees’ appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 14.02.2020.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →