RITU GUPTA,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 20 (1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 700/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2023AY 2015-20163 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 lower authorities' findings that the investment and returns lacked logic and human probability, concluding it was a method to convert unaccounted money. The grounds of appeal were found to be without substance.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed long-term capital gains on sale of shares and exemption under Section 10(38). The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 68 and disallowed commission under Section 69C, finding the transaction not genuine.

What were the issues?

Whether the long-term capital gains and exemption claimed on share transactions were genuine, or a modus operandi to convert unaccounted money.

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 BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.05.2023Pronounced: 09.05.2023

The assessee has come in appeal against the order dated 05.12. 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi (hereinafter referred 10378/370/CIT(A)-7/Del/2017-18 for the assessment year 2015-16, arising out of assessment order dated 29.12.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the “Act”), passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-20(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred in short as “Ld. AO”).

2.

Heard and perused the record.

3.

None appeared for the assessee. Notices were issued on the last date of hearing through learned DR and report of proof of service has been filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, arguments of learned DR were heard, who supported the findings of learned tax authorities below.

4.

Appreciating the material on record, it can be observed that learned AO has made addition of Rs. 1,13,13,484/- u/s 68 of the Act and disallowance of commission of Rs. 3,39,404/- u/s 69C of the Act on the basis of fact that long term capital gains of Rs. 1,07,13,484/- on sale of shares of M/s Channel Nine Entertainment Ltd. and claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act was found to be not genuine.

5.

It may be appreciated that learned tax authorities below have taken into consideration the antecedents of the assessee, her knowledge of the share market logic or human probabilities. Therefore, learned tax authorities below have concluded it to be a modus operandi to convert unaccounted money into the books of account. There is nothing on record to suggest that observations of learned tax authorities below are against the facts and there is any justification for contradicting the findings. Merely allotment of a public issue or sale of shares on stock exchange on due payment of STT alone does not justify and contradict the conclusions. The grounds have no substance. The appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 09.05.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →