Pankaj Ramanlal Bhagatwala, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, 2(3)(3), Surat

ITA 126/SRT/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0185 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital Gains; Bogus
• Section: 69; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JIDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.126/SRT/2022 Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Pankaj Ramanlal Bhagatwala B-4, Gateway Commune, B/h L.P.Savani Academy, Canal Road, Vesu, Surat-395007 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(3) Surat, èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AALPB 1533 G (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ /Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by None िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Revenue by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing 23.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement 12 .08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal by the assessee emanates from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”) dated 25.03.2022 for assessment year 2014-15 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short, “CIT(A)”), which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by Assessing Officer (in short, “AO”) u/s 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2016. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 2 ITA No.126/SRT/2022 AY.14-15 Pankaj R Bhagatwala “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs.13,02,728/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained Long Term Capital Gain. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer has also erred in treating investment of Rs.50,000/- as unexplained income which is part of addition of Rs.13,02,728/- as stated above. 3. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Office has also erred in treating Rs.3257/-of commission as unexplained expenditure u/s 69 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to what has been stated above, whether, on facts of the case and in law, Ld.AO has erred in not allowing credit of tax paid under “income Disclosure scheme” which amounts to Rs.62,500/-? Further, appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or without all or any ground of appeal.” 2. In this case hearings were fixed on 22.09.2022, 28.11.2022, 21.02.2023, 19.01.2023, 02.02.2023, 27.02.2023, 28.023.2023, 25.04.2023, 30.05.2023, 03.07.2023, 25.07,2023, 21.08.2023, 03.10.2023, 06.11.2023, 02.01.2024, 19.02.2024, 20.03.2024, 25.04.2024, 12.06.2024 and lastly on 23.072024. On most of the occasions, none appeared for the assessee. The case was adjourned several times on the request of the AR of the assessee. However, no written submission or details have been filed by the appellant or his authorized representative till date. It was informed to the Ld.AR of the appellant in course of hearing on 12.06.2024 that the last and final date of hearing would be on 23.07.2024. However, none attended on the date of hearing. It could be seen from the details narrated above 3 ITA No.126/SRT/2022 AY.14-15 Pankaj R Bhagatwala that the appellant is not at all serious about pursuing his appeal despite adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearings granted to appellant. No useful purpose would be served by prolonging the proceedings further. In such circumstances we decide to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of materials available on record after hearing the Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue. 3. The Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities and submitted that the assessee was not able to substantiate the claim of long-term capital gain of Rs.13,02,728/- arising from transactions of penny stock namely (UNNO Industries) before AO as well as CIT(A). His attempt to link disclosure of cash in IDS, 2016 for AY 2013-14 has been duly rejected by both lower authorities. 4. We have considered the submission of Ld.Sr-DR and perused the assessment order as well as appellate order. We find that assessee is a beneficiary of penny stock (UNNO Industries) transactions and availed entry of exempt long-term capital gains of Rs.12,52,358/-. The AO during assessment issued detailed show-cause notice to the assessee to prove the genuineness of transaction of exempt long-term capital 4 ITA No.126/SRT/2022 AY.14-15 Pankaj R Bhagatwala gain. The assessee in its reply has admitted the share transaction is not genuine. However, he requested that the benefit of disclosure of cash in IDS, 2016 for AY 2013-14 may be granted and the consequential capital gain in the current AY 2014-15 may not be taxed. The reply was not accepted because assessee failed to prove that the cash disclosed in Income Disclosure Scheme, 2016 (in short, ‘IDS’) has been utilized for taking benefit of LTCG in the next assessment year. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). 5. After hearing the assessee, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing that the question of linking the cash of Rs.12,50,000/- disclosed for AY 2013-14 under IDS Scheme, 2016 with LTCG of Rs.12,52,356/- admitted in the ITR of AY 2014-15 does not arise because the assessee has not furnished details regarding the date(s) when the shares were acquired by the assessee. The shares should have been held for 12 months to qualify as long term assets. Hence, the assessee was required to hold these shares in AY 2013-14. However, in Form-1 filed under IDS, 2016, the assessee did not disclose any shares and securities. Hence, question of linking LTCG for AY 2014- 15 with disclosure made for 2013-14 under IDS does not arise. The ground was accordingly dismissed. 5 ITA No.126/SRT/2022 AY.14-15 Pankaj R Bhagatwala 6. In the alternative ground, the assessee requested that credit for the taxes paid for IDS, 2016 should be allowed against the demand from the impugned addition of LTCG. The CIT(A) did not accept the contention of assessee by stating that the disclosure of cash has been accepted by the PCIT and Form No.4 has been issued. Hence, the tax paid for AY 2013-14 for disclosure under IDS, 2016 has been accepted for the said disclosure. The application under IDS, 2016 cannot be rejected and consequent credit cannot be given for the demand arising due to addition of bogus LTCG in the next assessment year (AY 2014- 15). He has accordingly, dismissed the appeal of assessee. Further aggrieved, assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have considered the submission of Ld.Sr-DR for the Revenue and the materials on record. We find that before AO as well as before CIT(A) the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of exempt long-term capital gains. He rather admitted that share transactions as non genuine. Before us also, the assessee failed to bring any contrary evidence to prove the transactions as genuine. The lower authorities have passed reasoned and speaking order after considering the facts of the case and submission of the assessee, which has been discussed 6 ITA No.126/SRT/2022 AY.14-15 Pankaj R Bhagatwala earlier in this order. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by the assessee. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced on 12/08/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER स ू रत/Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 12/08/2024 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat