JYOTI RAKESH ROONGTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-43(5), KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on an erroneous belief and made the addition without specific details. The assessee had consistently denied selling shares and earning capital gains, supported by documentary evidence.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on information that the assessee earned bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) from penny stocks. The assessee denied selling any shares or earning such gains, providing bank statements and her computation of income as evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition on account of bogus long-term capital gains is sustainable when the assessee has denied selling shares and provided supporting evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Rajesh Kumar
Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National
(A.Y. 2012-2013) Jyoti Rakesh Roongta Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.01.2024 passed for A.Y. 2012-13.
The assessee has taken nine grounds of appeal, but her grievances revolve around a single issue, namely whether addition on account of bogus long-term capital gain amounting to Rs.38,97,080/- deserves to be made in the hands of the assessee or not.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed her return of income on 23.03.2013 declaring income of Rs.11,36,360/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment by issuance of a notice under section 148. The ld. Assessing Officer was of the view that he got an information from the ld. DDIT (Inv.), Unit-2(1), Kolkata exhibiting that assessee has traded in penny stock shares of DLS Exports Pvt. Ltd. and earned bogus LTCG of Rs.38,97,080/-. The assessee in response to the notice of ld. Assessing Officer contended that she has not sold any shares of DLS Exports Pvt. Ltd. She further submitted that she has not earned any capital gain amounting to Rs.38,97,080/- and nor claimed it as an exempt. The ld. Assessing Officer did not pay any heed to the submission of the assessee and passed the assessment order on 27.12.2019 whereby he made an addition of Rs.38,97,080/- to the total income of the assessee.
The assessee again reiterated her stand in the statement of facts filed before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not (A.Y. 2012-2013) Jyoti Rakesh Roongta verify all these contentions and mechanically concurred with the ld. Assessing Officer.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee while taking us through the paper book contended that in the computation of income, there is no such claim of capital gain exemption under section 10(38)(b). He also drew our attention towards Bank statement where it does not show credit of any amount on sale of shares. The ld. Counsel for the assessee thereafter took us through paragraph no. 43 of the paper book where the assessee has made a specific reply to the ld. Assessing Officer against his reopening. The ld. Counsel for the assessee thereafter drew our attention towards sub-para 6 and 9 of the statement of facts. On the strength of all these documents, he submitted that no such capital gain deserves to be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
The ld. D.R., on the other hand, relied upon the assessment order.
We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. On page no. 43 of the paper book, the assessee has placed on record a letter written to the ld. Assessing Officer submitting therein that she has not sold shares in this assessment year. This letter reads as under:-
(A.Y. 2012-2013) Jyoti Rakesh Roongta
Similarly alongwith Form 35, the assessee has annexed statement of facts. In this statement, apart from other submissions, the specific pleadings made in paragraphs no. 6 & 9 to be noticed:- “6. The assessee filed objections to the Notice issued u/s 148 on 04.11.2019 wherein it is very strange to point out that the assessment was reopened on alleged ground of the appellant earning LTCG of Rs.38,97,080/- on sale of penny stock of DLS Export Private Limited while in the disposal of 4
(A.Y. 2012-2013) Jyoti Rakesh Roongta reason shows reason for reopening was Capital Gain on sale of immovable property u/s 50C. This clearly shown that the entire proceedings were conducted in cavalier manner without application of mind and looking into facts and evidences on records”.
“9. In response to the notice under section 142(1) for show cause dated 20.12.2019 the appellant again submitted on 21.12.2019 that no shares was sold by the assessee during the period under review and submitted bank account statement in connection with the same to prove the authenticity of its submission”.
On perusal of this specific submission, we are of the view that neither the ld. Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(Appeals) has categorically rejected this claim of the assessee. The assessment order is based on general information that assessee has sold the shares. The ld. Assessing Officer has nowhere put the charge against the assessee specifically. On the other hand, the assessee has demonstrated from the Bank Statement, Computation of Income and her stand before the revenue authorities that she has not sold any shares during this assessment year and earned capital gain, which was claimed as exempt. Therefore, we are of the view that ld. Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment on erroneous formation of belief. He has made the addition without any specific details possessed by him. The addition is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and delete the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer.
(A.Y. 2012-2013) Jyoti Rakesh Roongta 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 8/04/2024.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary Dept. Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages PVT. LTD. vs. The Commissioner, CGST And Cx, Dibrugarh And AnrGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Rst Batteries vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Dr.Sunil Kumar Padhi vs. The Chief Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026