Babita Goyal, Haryana V. ITO, Ward -1, Rohtak

ITA 1211/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Babita Goyal, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs. 87,270 to her income, claimed as long-term capital gains from shares, which the tax authorities deemed bogus. The AO re-opened her assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and after scrutiny, added the amount to her income, treating the transactions as non-genuine. The CIT(A) partly upheld this decision, leading to the appeal at the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities' findings that the transactions were not genuine and thus the gains were bogus.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122236 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1211/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Babita Goyal, Dayal Bhawan Meham, Rohtak, Haryana-124112 PAN-AGLPG1864F vs ITO, Ward-I, Rohtak. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Ms.Rano Jain, Adv. & Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Respondent by Shri Sanjay Nargas, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 15.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 27.02.2023 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 09.05.2022. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding addition of Rs. 87270/- on A/c of alleged long term capital gain in shares. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 87270/- out of 160655/- by treating the same as bogus long term capital gain. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in not considering the factual position that the appellant was never proved to be a willful offender of bogus long term capital gain in shares. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in not considering submission / evidences filed by the appellant.” Page | 2 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 19.12.2018. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) noted that the assessee had filed return of income, declaring total income of Rs.2,54,240/- and has claimed exemption of Rs.1,88,196/- u/s 10(38) of the Act on account of sale of securities of Rs.87,270/- earned on sale of share of M/s. Global Capital Pvt.Ltd. The AO after making elaborate discussion, treated the transaction as not genuine and made addition of Rs.1,60,655/- and assessed income of the assessee at Rs.4,14,900/-. 4. Aggrieved against the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.87,270/-. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a regular investor in shares since the previous year. The assessee had declared income from Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”) shares. It was further submitted that the assessee has been making investment so the authorities below have wrongly treated the same as bogus transaction. 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. He contended that the AO has brought on record that transactions are not genuine. He drew my attention to the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. Page | 3 8. I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. The AO has given a finding on fact by observing that the assessee is one of the beneficials who has taken entry during the relevant Assessment Year and earned bogus LTCG. This finding of the AO is not rebutted by the assessee by placing any contrary material on record. Looking to the totality of the facts, I do not see any reason to interfere in the findings of the authorities below, the same is hereby affirmed. Grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are hence, dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 th February, 2023. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI