RANJANA WADHWA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-41(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1955/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower tax authorities, concluding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. The grounds raised by the assessee were found to be without substance.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed long-term capital gains (LTCG) on the sale of shares of M/s. KAPPAC Pharma Ltd. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the LTCG and commission to the assessee's income, alleging the transactions were bogus. The AO's findings were based on an investigation wing report and various parameters of the share's trading history.

What were the issues?

Whether the LTCG claimed by the assessee on the sale of shares was genuine or bogus, and whether the assessee discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69C,Section 10(38)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 10.05.2023Pronounced: 16.05.2023

The appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.01.2019 of CIT(A)-14, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No. 89/17-18/CIT(A)-14, New Delhi arising out of an appeal before it against the order dated 18.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the I.T.O., Ward 41(5), New Delhi (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO). 2. Heard and perused the record.

Ranjana Wadhwa 3. At the time of hearing, none has appeared for the assessee. Record shows, notices have been issued earlier on five occasions to the assessee. No more opportunity is justified. Arguments of Ld. DR were heard who supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below.

4.

A perusal of the record shows that the Ground raised by the assessee are argumentative in nature, however, the substantive ground arises from the fact that Ld. Tax Authorities below have made an addition of Rs. 2,09,93,738/- with the break up of Rs. 2,03,63,338/- u/s 68 of the Act as alleged bogus LTCG and Rs. 6,30,400/- as commission u/s 69C of the Act. It can be appreciated from the record and the order of ld. Tax Authorities below that in regard to script KAPPAC Pharma Ltd. there was an investigation wing of Kolkata report for which the capital gain of assessee on sale of shares of M/s. KAPPAC Pharma was analysed. Genuineness of transaction claimed by the assessee where doubted. Ld. Tax Authorities had examined the investment of assessee in stock exchange of various parameters including the fact that share were purchased of the market whereas a script was listed in the stock exchange. It will be appropriate to reproduce the factual findings available at page no. 20-22 of the order of the Ld. AO reproduced as under :- “The onus to prove the genuineness of share transactions was on the assessee which she failed to discharge with regard to claim of exemption u/s 10(38) for the following reasons:- i. Assessee purchased shares of a company/script which is devoid of any basic fundamentals and was suspended by the BSE for trading previously as well as afterward. A regular and genuine investor would hardly know that such a company is even listed on BSE. ii. From the Audited financials filed by the company with BSE, It is a matter of fact that the Listed company does not have any significant/real business as seen from its last many P&L accounts and do not have any significant fixed assets or plant

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →