URMILA HIRAWAT,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 6(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 912/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 September 2018AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was made on generalized allegations without specific reference to the assessee's transactions. The investigation report and statements were not furnished to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed long-term capital gains on share sales under Section 10(38). The Assessing Officer disallowed this, citing it as a penny stock transaction based on an investigation report and statements not provided to the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of long-term capital gains on penny stock transactions is valid when the supporting investigation reports and statements were not provided to the assessee. Whether the issue regarding disallowance under Section 14A is pressed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ SMC BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN

For Respondent: Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
Hearing: 05.09.2018Pronounced: 11.09.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai, dated 12.01.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.

The first issue arises for consideration is addition of ₹13,73,020/-. 2.

3.

Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that the assessee claimed long term capital gain in sale of shares under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. counsel, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee on the ground that it is a penny stock. According to the Ld. counsel, the material referred in the assessment order and order of the CIT(Appeals) and the so-called report of the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata were not furnished to the assessee. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the assessee could not understand what is the actual reason for disallowance. Moreover, the statements said to be recorded from various persons were also not furnished to the assessee.

Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

4.

On the contrary, Shri B. Sagadevan, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that it is a penny stock transaction. According to the Ld. D.R., the equity shares of shell companies were transacted and the price of each share was artificially increased. According to the Ld. D.R., the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata found that there was cartel among the brokers who are all involved in penny stocks of shell companies. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 10(38) of the Act.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of generalised allegation, disallowed the claim of the assessee under Section 10(38) of the Act. There was no specific reference about the assessee’s transactions in the assessment order.

Moreover, the so-called investigation report said to be submitted by the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata and other statements said to be recorded from various persons were not furnished to the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to furnish the investigation report of the Department at Kolkata and the statements said to be recorded from various persons to the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

6.

The assessee has raised one more ground with regard to disallowance made under Section 14A of the Act.

7.

During the course of hearing, the Ld.counsel for the assessee very fairly submitted that he is not pressing this issue. Therefore, the issue with regard to disallowance under Section 14A of the Act is confirmed.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 10(38)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →