TEJRAJ G. JAIN (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee has purchased and sold certain shares through a broker named M/s Alliance Intermediatries and Network P Ltd, which was belonging to Mukesh Choksi group. In the search undertaken in the case of Mukesh Choksi group, shri Mukesh choksi admitted that he and his group of companies are indulging in providing accommodation entries to generate capital gains. It was noticed that the assessee has declared capital gains by dealing with the above said group and hence the AO reopened the assessment of the year under consideration. The assessee had purchased shares of Dr. Reddy Laboratories, IFCI, Crazy Infotech and Kamanwala Housing during the year under consideration. However it has sold the shares of Dr. Reddy Laboratories only during the year under 2 Tejraj G. Jain (HUF)

I notice that the assessee has purchased and sold shares of Dr. Reddy laboratories on the same day, i.e., it was an intraday transaction. Hence there was no necessity for the assessee to make any payment. I also notice that the above said scrip is that of a reputed company, i.e., the gains were not generated through the shares of companies generally operated by Mukesh Choksi group. Further the assessee has also furnished details of broker notes to substantiate the purchase and sales. It was observed by the tax authorities that the registration of M/s Alliance Intermediatries has been cancelled, but the said fact, in my view, cannot make the impugned transaction as bogus in view of the other evidences available on record. Hence I am of the view that the profit of Rs.19,954/- need not be treated as unexplained cash credit, since the assessee has given supporting to prove the credit. Accordingly I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to assess the above said gain as short term capital gain in the hands of the assessee.

The assessee has also raised some other legal issues. Since the appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits, I do not find it necessary to adjudicate them.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 20.9.2017.