D.D. AGARWAL (HUF),KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1551/KOL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 November 2018AY 2014-154 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additions based on general reports, human probabilities, and suspicion, without specific material against the assessee, are not sustainable. The assessee's evidence supporting the genuineness of the transactions remained unchallenged.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the assessee's claim of Long Term Capital Gains on share transactions, deeming them bogus based on general reports. The AO added the entire sale proceeds as income and disallowed exemption under Section 10(38).

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in rejecting the claim of Long Term Capital Gains based on general reports and circumstantial evidence, despite the assessee providing evidence of genuine transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10(38),Section 68,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy

Appearances by: Shri S.S. Gupta, FCA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Sr. D/R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : October 31th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : November 16th , 2018 ORDER Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘Ld. CIT(A)’), dt. 23/05/2018, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s. NCL Research & Financial Services Ltd. The AO based on a general report and modus operandi adopted generally in these cases and on general observations has concluded that the assessee has claimed bogus long term capital gain. He made an addition of the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income and rejected the claim of exemption made u/s 10(38) of the Act. The evidence produced by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the transaction was rejected.

3.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and Assessment Year: 2014-15 D.D. Agarwal (HUF) “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee, in support of the genuineness of the transactions. In other words, the overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. The entire conclusions drawn by the revenue authorities, are based on a common report of the Director of Investigation, Kolkata, which was general in nature and not specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given.

4.

Under the circumstances, in a number of cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding have been given on this issue are listed below:- Sl.No of the Assessee Date of order /Judgment 1. 1236-1237/K/17 Manish Kumar Baid & Others vs ACIT 18.08.2017 ITAT - Kolkata 2 443/Kol/2017 Kiran Kothari (HUF) vs ITO 15.11.2017 3. 22 of 2009 CIT, Kolkata-III vs Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal 29.04.2009 Calcutta High Court 4. 456 if 2007 CIT vs Shri Mukhesh Ratilal Marolia 07.09.2011 Bombay High Court 5. 18 of 2017 Punjab Pr. C.I.T. (Central)Ludhiana vs Sh.Hitesh 16.02.2017 and Haryana High Gandhi, Court 6. 95 of 2017 Pr. C.I.T. vs Prem Pal Gandhi 18.01.2018. Punjab and Haryana High Court 7. 2281/Kol/2017 Navneet Agarwal, Legal Heir of Late Kiran 20.07.2018 ITAT - Kolkata Agarwal vs ITO,Ward-35(3),Calcutta

Assessment Year: 2014-15 D.D. Agarwal (HUF) 5. We are bound by the proposition of law laid down in these case law by the Jurisdictional High Court as well as by the ITAT Kolkata. They are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The ld. Departmental Representative, though not leaving his ground, could not controvert the claim of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the issue in question is covered by the above cited decisions of the Hon’ble High Courts and the ITAT.

6.

In view of the above discussion the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, and the consequential addition made u/s 69C of the Act, are deleted.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

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 →