MALVIKA PERIWAL,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD-29(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the share transactions were executed on a registered exchange through a registered broker and supported by documentary evidence. However, due to the non-service of summons on a key entity, the matter was restored to the AO for further verification.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed long-term capital gains on the sale of equity shares as exempt. The AO found the transactions to be bogus as a summoned company could not be found at the given address, and added the gains as unexplained cash credit. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether the long-term capital gains on sale of shares are to be treated as unexplained cash credit when the AO could not verify the genuineness of the transaction due to the non-existence of a summoned company at the given address.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM]
ORDER Per Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM Appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.09.2022 for AY 2014-15. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.18,98,479/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of long term capital gain on sale of equity shares as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act.
Brief facts are that during the year the assessee has claimed long term capital of Rs.18,94,479/- as exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. The said gain has accrued from the sale of shares of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. According to Ld. AO, the said capital gain is bogus and is only an accommodation entry though the assessee has filed all the evidences before the AO comprising copies of contract notes, de mat account, payment through banking channel etc. AO issued summon u/s. 131 of the Act to M/s. Kanyakumari Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. requiring personal attendance to examine the genuineness of the share transactions as claimed by the assessee. However, the said summons could not be served as no company existed on that address and Inspector deputed by the AO submitted a report that there is no such company at the given address. Finally, the AO after discussing the modus operandi that the shares have earned more than 18 times of gain in a short span of time and added the same u/s. 68 of the Act. In the appellate proceeding, the same was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). Malvika Periwal, AY 2014-15 4. After hearing the rival parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that undisputedly the transactions in respect of sale of equity shares of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. was executed on the registered exchange platform through registered broker and the documents concerning the sale and purchase of share and payments in respect thereof were also filed by the assessee along with copy of de mat account. However, the summons issued u/s. 131 of the Act to M/s. Kanyakumari Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., intended to do verification by the Ld. AO, could not be served on account of the non-availability of the said company on the given address. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the issue of sale of shares needs to be examined at the level of the AO. Accordingly, we restore the issue back to the file of the Ld. AO with direction to issue summon u/s. 131 of the Act to M/s. Kanyakumari suppliers Pvt. Ltd. and do the necessary verification and assessee is also directed to furnish the correct address before the Ld. AO or produce the said party for verification before the AO. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026