Mukesh Kumar Dugar , Hooghly V. ITO, Ward - 35(2), Kolkata , Kolkata

ITA 1529/KOL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2075 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 271(1)(c); 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 234B; 133(6); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” (Virtual Court Hearing) BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member I.T.A. No.1529/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mukesh Kumar Dugar............................................................................Appellant 75, BBD Road, Eliza 3, 4 th Floor, Hind Motor, Hooghly-712233. [PAN: AHBPD9712G] vs. ITO, Ward-35(2), Kolkata.................................................................Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Biswanath Das, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : January 05, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : February 03, 2022 Hearing through Video Conferencing ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.04.2018 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notice. As per the report of the Registry, the assessee was also informed telephonically on 28.12.21 regarding the fixing of the present appeal. Since no one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the Ld. DR and after going through the records. 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that in view and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) -10, Kolkata has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and in confirming the addition of LTCG alleged to be bogus on the basis of report received from DIT (Investigation) Kolkata on shares of UNNO INDUSTRIES LIMITED amounting to Rs. I.T.A. No.1529/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mukesh Kumar Dugar 2 8010750/- U/s 68 which was claimed exempt u/s 10(38) even though all the evidences, documents, papers for substantiating the genuine LTCG earned were produced by the appellant. 2) For that in view and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) -10, Kolkata has erred on facts and in law in confirming additions of Rs. 385962/- made by AO on notional basis, which were not incurred by the appellant. 3) For that in view and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) -10, Kolkata has erred on facts and in law in confirming the imposition of interest u/s 234A Rs. 206256/-, Rs. 850806/- u/s 234B and initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(C) of IT Act even though no such interest and penalty was chargeable in the instant case. 4) For that in view and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) -10, Kolkata has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant without making any enquiry of transaction by applying investigation, U/s 133(6) or 131 or other methods as provided in the IT Act, 1961. 5) That the above grounds of appeal will be argued in detail during the course of hearing and the appellant craves the right to put additional grounds and/or amend/alter/modify part of the above grounds before or at the time of hearing. 4. A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveals that the assessee has contested the addition of Rs.8010750/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the claim of long- term capital gains as bogus. 5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed tax exempted long- term capital gains of Rs.77,19,247/- on account of sale of shares of Unno Industries. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had purchased shares of Basukinath Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. in physical format on 05.05.2011 for Rs.2,50,000/-. Subsequently, the assessee received 22500 bonus shares of Basukinath Real Estate Ltd. on 16.03.2012. The shares were later amalgamated with Unno Industries. The shares were split at the ratio of 1:10 and the assessee was allotted 2,37,500 shares of Unno Industries. These shares were subsequently dematerialized on 08.04.2013 and the share became 38000. During the financial year 2013-14, the assessee sold 2,37,500 shares of Unno Industries Ltd. whereupon the assessee made a gain of almost 3088% in a span of twenty-nine months. In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that the share price movement and sale purchase transactions were not genuine which was result of meticulously planned circular trading and the entities involved in these were part of this exercise in an I.T.A. No.1529/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mukesh Kumar Dugar 3 effort to create documentary evidences for a pre-planned scheme for converting unaccounted money into tax exempt income. The Assessing Officer accordingly held that the sale consideration introduced by the assessee against the sale of shares was unexplained cash credit of the assessee. He accordingly made the impugned addition. 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer by observing that the whole gamut of transaction was unnatural. He relied upon the various case laws and confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Before us, no one has appeared to rebut the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. DR on the other hand has vehemently supported the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). In view of this, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. Kolkata, the 3 rd February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Sanjay Garg] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 03.02.2022. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Mukesh Kumar Dugar 2. ITO, Ward-35(2), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Sr.PS/D.D.O, Kolkata Benches