PRAVEEN GARG HUF,ROURKELA vs. ITO, WARD 1, ROURKELA, ROURKELA

PDF

ITA 823/CTK/2025Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 March 2026AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, Praveen Garg HUF, filed appeals against the order of the NFAC for AY 2014-15. The core issue was the claim of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act concerning shares of NCL Research.

Held

The Tribunal noted that the issue was identical to a previous decision involving the assessee's brother. Following the precedent, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of deduction under Section 10(38). Consequently, the penalty under Section 271 was also deleted.

Key Issues

Whether the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 10(38) for gains from NCL Research shares, and whether the penalty under Section 271 is sustainable.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Abhijeet Agarwal, AR

For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Sr. DR

Hearing: 16.03.2026Pronounced: 16.03.2026

12.

“This being so, as also on account of the fact that it is noticed that the transactions have been done through the National Stock Exchange and STT has also been paid, respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Bimala Devi Singhania in IT Nos.84 & 85 of 2022 vide order dated 10.10.2023, I am of the view that no addition in the hands of the assessee is called for. Consequently, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by ld CIT(A) in respect of alleged penny stock stands deleted. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the benefit of exemption claimed u/s.10(38) of the Act.” 3.1 It was the submission that the issue is fully covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. It was further submitted by the ld. AR that is consequential penalty proceedings u/s 271 confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

We have considered the rival submissions. It is noticed that the issue in the present case is in regard to the shares of NCL research and the issue has already held in favour of the assessee in the case of assessee’s brother. Respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Satish Kr. Garg vs. ITO (supra) on identical issue, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the benefit of deduction u/s 10(38) of the Act. As the additions itself has been deleted, the penalty u/s 271 is no more survive and the penalty stands deleted.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Kolkata, the 16th March, 2026.