RACHIN BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 34(3), NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower tax authorities, concluding that the assessees had no proper justification for investments in a company with poor financials and that the transactions were part of a bogus LTCG scheme. The AO's detailed examination, including reliance on an Investigation wing report and broker statements, was found to be sufficient, and no interference with the findings of fact or law was warranted.
What were the facts?
Four assessees claimed long-term capital gains (LTCG) from transactions in shares of M/s Blue Print Securities Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) deemed these transactions as bogus and made additions under section 68 for unexplained credit and commission paid, which were subsequently sustained by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The assessees did not appear for the hearing despite repeated notices, leading to an ex-parte hearing.
What were the issues?
Whether the long-term capital gains claimed from transactions in M/s Blue Print Securities Ltd. were bogus and rightly added as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. G.S. PANNU & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA&
respective orders dated 30/01/2019 in case of Renu Bansal, order dated 23/01/2019 in case of Rachin Bansal, order dated 25/01/2019 in case of Ramesh Kumar Bansal(HUF) and order dated 30/01/2019 in case of Rashmi Bansal passed by Ld. CIT(A)-12, New Delhi in appeals preferred by these appellants/assessees against the assessment order dated 26/12/2017 u/s 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act 1961, (hereinafter quoted as ‘ the Act’), for assessment year 2012-13,
The appellants were allegedly found to be claiming long term capital gains on the basis of transactions in shares of M/s Blue Print Securities Ltd. The Assessing Officer had made the additions in the case of respective assessees u/s 68 of the Act on account of unexplained credit and also on account of commission paid which were sustained by Ld.CIT(Appeals) and, therefore, the assessee are in appeal before this Tribunal against the impugned order of Ld.CIT(A) passed in respective cases and the grounds raised in the four appeals are all similar except for the figures involved in terms of individual additions and aggregate. Therefore, these appeals are heard together.
2.1 As the case was called for hearing on 18.10.2023 none appeared on behalf of any of the assessee/appellants and the record shows notices have been issued repeatedly to them. The addresses of all the four assessee is H-22, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, New Delhi and the registered cover envelops issued have been received back with report that the addressee has left. In the light of number of notices issued and report received, no further notice was justified and matter was heard. However, matter was referred on 19.01.2024 for clarification but none appeared.
Arguments of Ld. DR were heard who supported the findings of tax authorities are below.
It can be appreciated that the AO has extensively examined the modus operandi of bogus LTCG involving the scrip M/s Blue Print Securities Ltd. AO relying the Investigation wing report examined the transactions in this scrip. He examined the role of various brokers involved in buying and selling of scrip of this company and the statement of one of the brokers has been relied extensively. It appears that except for the fact that the payments were received through account payee cheque and STT was charged by share broker, the Assessee had no other justification for the investments in offline transactions in a company giving no dividend and inadequate profits.
AO has examined steep increase in the volumes and the share prices over a period and as to how the company decreased its equity capital.
The order of the Ld.CIT(A) shows that except for filing written submission in ‘dak’, no evidences were filed to discredit the inferences drawn by AO out of poor financials of the company and the manner in which the scrip was traded. The fact that appellant had purchased shares of another company, which had amalgamated with M/s Blue Print Securities Ltd., for cash, has been duly examined by the Ld.CIT(A) to confirm the findings of Ld. AO. Thus, we are of the considered view that the findings of fact or law made by Ld. Tax Authorities below require no interference. Consequently the grounds raised have no substance and the appeals are dismissed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
