Case Law Details
Kamlesh Gupta Vs Dy. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that in the absence of any evidence on allegation that some person provided the entry to convert unaccounted money for getting benefit of LTCG in the grab of exempt LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act the same cannot be accepted.
Facts-
A.O was of the view that the LTCG of Rs. 5,93,45,030/- that was claimed by the assessee as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act did not merit acceptance. Backed by his aforesaid observations, the A.O held the sale proceeds of shares of Rs. 6,06,49,780/- as an unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. Also, the A.O holding a conviction that the assessee would have paid commission for facilitating the aforesaid transaction of bogus LTCG, thus, made a further addition of Rs.36,38,987/- i.e @6% of the impugned sale proceeds of Rs.6,06,49,780/-. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147, dated 27.12.2017 assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.6,84,06,690/-.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). Observing, that the gain of Rs.5,93,45,030/- derived by the assessee from the sale of share of M/s JMD Telefilms Industries Ltd. was derived from bogus and manipulated share prices which were nothing but unexplained investment/income of the asssessee that was converted under the garb of share market investment, the CIT(A) upheld the view taken by the A.O. Accordingly, the CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs.5,93,45,030/- that was made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act a/w the addition of Rs.36,68,987/- made by him u/s 69C of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
