Shri Sanjay Singal Vs DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
Addition of Rs. 61.86 Crore in 9 Appeals on Account of Bogus Long Term Capital Gain U/S 10(38) Claimed Deleted on Facts of Alleged Penny Scrip of PIL (Praneta Industries Ltd) and Revenue Rule 29 Application Containing Fir Filed by ED Against Companies of Bhushan Group & Statement of Promoters Before Enforcement Agencies Rejected By Tribunal.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
PER BENCH: This is a bunch of nine appeals filed by four assessees against common order of the ld.CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dated 31.3.2018.
2. It is pertinent to note that the ld.CIT(A) has decided eighteen appeals by the impugned order in the following cases:
i) Shri Sanjay Singhal
Asstt.Years 2008-09, 2010-11 to 2014-15
ii) Aarti Singhal
Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 to 2014-15
iii) Shri Aniket Singhal
Asstt.Year 2013-14 & 2014-15
iv) Shri Sanjay Singhal (HUF)
Year 2011-12 to 2014-15
3. Though we will refer the facts in detail, but at this stage, it is important to note that search under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out by the Department at the business premises of the assessee-group i.e. Bhusan Power & Steel Group (“BSPL” for short) along with residential/ business premises of its directors and other related entities/ persons on 3.3.2010 and 21.2.2014 for A.Y.2014-15. The second proviso to section 153A contemplates that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this section i.e. section 153A(1) pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A as the case may be, shall abate. It is further observed that apart from present nine appeals, eight more appeals i.e. ITA Nos.706, 707, 709/Chd/2018 filed by Shri sanjay Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13; and ITA No.712, 713 & 715/Chd/2018 also filed by Smt.Aarti Singhal for the Asstt.Year 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13. Similarly, the assessee, Shri Sanjay Singhal HUF has also filed appeals against reopening of the assessment in the Asstt.Year 2011-12 and 2013-14.
4. These appeals pertain to unabated years i.e. in these years assessment/reassessment were not pending on the date of search. Similarly, in the case of Shri Sanjay Singhal HUF assessments were reopened. Therefore, for the facility of adjudication, the Tribunal has segregated these appeals from the present-one, and decided the appeals of Shri Sanjay Singhal and Smt.Aarti Snghal vide order dated 7.2.2020. Similarly, in the case of Shri Sanjay Singhal HUF were decided on 19.6.2020. The Department had filed Misc.Application in all these appeals, which also stands dismissed by the Tribunal. Thus, out of 18 appeals decided by the ld.first appellate authority by the common order, eight appeals were decided by the Tribunal.
5. Adverting back to the facts of the present appeals, we find that all the appellants have taken almost identically worded grounds of appeal except variation in the quantum of amounts mentioned in those grounds. It is also worth to note that at the time of hearing, the ld.counsel for the assessee has filed gist of arguments along with detailed arguments in a compilation, running into 17 pages dated 18.6.2021. He has tabulated the amounts in dispute in each appeal exhibiting as to how the grounds are common. Therefore for the facility of reference, we take note grounds of appeal from ITA No.708/Chd/2018 for the Asstt.Yar 2011-12 in the case of Shri Sanjay Singhal, and thereafter, we take note of details of addition compiled in the tabulated form by the ld.counsel for the assessee. They read as under:
GROUNDS:
“1. That order dated 31.03.2018 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the “Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings u/s 153A of the Act despite the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search u/s 132 conducted on 21-02-2014 whereby the order passed is without jurisdiction, bad in law and void ab-initio.
2. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon gravely erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.56,12,10,020/- representing the sale proceeds of listed equity shares held by the Appellant for more than 12 months by invoking the provisions of Sec. 68 of the Act by ignoring the relevant specific facts and circumstances of the case and by relying on extraneous arguments and evidences, including in particular, circumstantial evidence, which has no bearing and applicability to the case.
3. That the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals}-3, Gurgaon was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the transactions relating to purchase and sale of equity shares as ingenuine transactions.
4. That the Ld Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon further gravely erred in upholding the action of the id. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.3,53,37,680/- on account of alleged commission expenses paid by the Appellant for arranging the alleged entries in respect of Long Term Capital Gains by invoking the provisions of Sec. 69C of the Act on sheer presumptive basis.
5. That the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon while adjudicating the appeal, has dismissed various grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant by relying on statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons thereby ignoring the basic principles of natural justice despite the fact that a specific ground was raised to this effect.”
ADDITIONS:
Sanjay Singal
