VIVEK MOHTA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

(A.Y. 2014-2015) Vivek Mohta National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29th May, 2023 passed for assessment year 2014-15.

The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal. However, his grievances revolve around a single issue, namely ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,93,658/-, which was claimed by the assessee as a long-term capital gain exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act.

Apart from this issue, the assessee has pleaded laws of peripheral arguments surrounding this central point in other grounds of appeal.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his return of income on 30th July, 2014 declaring total income of Rs.6,76,740/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and a notice under section 143(2) was issued and served upon the assessee. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee was working as a Director of M/s. Asansol Steel Castings Pvt. Limited. He has earned income from other sources. The assessee has purchased 15,000 shares @ Rs.2/- per scrip of Kailash Auto Limited on 18.02.2013. These shares were sold in March, 2014 @ Rs.41.57 per scrip. The ld. Assessing Officer has observed that he has received information from Investigation Wing exhibiting the fact that certain individuals were involved in manipulating the shares of certain Companies, who have rigged the price and yielded undue benefits in the form of bogus accommodation entries to large

Appeal to the ld. CIT(Appeals) did not bring any relief to the assessee.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied upon the order of ITAT, Guwahati Bench in the case of Seema Holding Pvt. Limited -vs.- ITO. He further submitted that the assessee has filed all details in the shape of bill for purchase of shares, Bank statement from where payment was made, copy of contract note and Demat account.

On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj, wherein Hon’ble High Court has considered a large number of appeals involving identical issue He further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court reported in 446 ITR page 56, the addition deserves to be confirmed.

We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The major concern, whose scrips are purchased and sold by large number of public is of Kailash Auto Limited. This was the major company, whose details have been (A.Y. 2014-2015) Vivek Mohta examined by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj. The Hon’ble High Court has recorded a finding that whosoever has dealt with the shares of this company and claimed long-term capital gain, which deserves to be treated as bogus.

As far as the other grounds pleaded by the assessee are concerned, we find that in Grounds No. 1 & 2, the assessee has pressed general pleading and no specific submission was made. In Grounds No. 3 & 5, the only issue challenged by the assessee is with regard to the addition of Rs.5,93,658/-, which we have considered.

Grounds No. 6, 7, 8 & 9 are again general grounds of appeal, which do not call for recording of any finding.