1. The common issue raised in these appeals relates to treatment of long term capital gains as cash credit u/s 69C of the Act. Assessees also questioned the validity of the re-assessment. However, the same is not pressed and therefore, dismissed as not pressed.
2. Referring to the core issue ie addition u/s 69C of the Act, Ld AR for the assessee submitted that the assessees purchased 3000 shares each of M/s. Ramakrishna Fincap Ltd in the year 2003 @ Rs. 3.12 per share. The same were sold in 2005 at the sale price of Rs. 157.30 involving a broker named M/s. Basant Periwal & Company in Calcutta Stock Exchange. There was no investigation into the said sale and purchase transaction of the assessee by any agencies. However, the SEBI investigated into the broker‟s affairs and held him found violating the bye laws of SEBI. The same are the facts in another related case of Sri Indravadan Jain HUF, a relative of the assessee under consideration. Referring to the facts of the case of Sri Indravadan Jain, ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the similar additions were made in that case and the Tribunal deleted the addition vide its order in ITA No.5168/M/2014 and others dated 27.5.2016. Before the Tribunal, Ld AR prayed for considering both the instant appeals as covered ones by the said order of the Tribunal (supra) dated 27.08.2016.
Further, referring to the order of the CIT (A) and the way the FAA distinguished the said Tribunal‟s order in the case of Sri Indravadan Jain (supra), Ld Counsel for the assessee demonstrated that the CIT (A) is hyper technical and not fair in not following the said order of the Tribunal (supra) of the case of Sri Indravadan Jain, (supra).
3. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited decision of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Indravadan Jain HUF (supra), I find, the said decision of the Tribunal applies to the instant appeals of the assessees and there is no case for confirming the said addition in both the cases. The additions made u/s 69C of the Act stand deleted. Therefore, I direct the Assessing Officer to accept the claims of the assessee and also the said decision of the Tribunal (supra) in the case of Sri Indravadan Jain HUF (supra). The facts of the present two appeals are identical to that of the ones of Sri Indravadan Jain HUF (supra). Thus, all the grounds raised by the assessees in their respective appeals are allowed considering their covered nature. I order accordingly.