Arun Kumar Goyal (HUF), Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Hyderabad

ITA 2416/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2159 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P MURALI MOHAN RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Accommodation entries; Penny stocks; Capital Gains
• Section: 69C; 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO. 2416 /H YD /20 1 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 14 - 15 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYDERABAD. PAN A A GHA 7701L` VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER , WARD 14 ( 5 ), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P. MURALI MOHAN RAO REVENUE BY: SHRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR DATE OF HEARING: 10 /0 5 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 /0 6 /2021 O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST CIT(A) 6 , HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 16 / 03 /201 8 FOR AY 20 1 4 - 15 INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 1 4 3( 3 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ; IN SHORT THE ACT ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1 . THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GENERAL (APPEALS) - 6 IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN I TA NO. 2416 /HYD /201 8 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYD. : - 2 - : LAW, TO GROUND THE EXTENT THE ORDER IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT FOR RS. 37,05,325 / - 3 . THE LD. CIT( A) OUGHT TO HAVE FAIRLY APPRECIATED THAT THE AO ERRED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES OF RS. 37,05,325/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 4 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY PURCHASED AND SOLD THE SHARES ACCORDINGLY, THROUGH RECOGNISED SEBI WHICH CONFIRMS THE VALIDITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 5 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT AO ERRED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,14,930/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF INCOME TAX ACT,1961 FOR PAYING AMOUNT TO THE BROKER FOR ARRANGING THE TRANSACTIONS. 6 I THE LD.CIT (A) ERRED NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SHARES SOLD WERE ACQUIRED IN EARLIER YEARS AND THAT THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE PURCHASE OF SHARES. WHEN THE PURCHASES ARE NOT DOUBTED, DOUBTING SALES IS ILLOGICAL. 7 THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENTS, DETAILS OF SHARES PURCHASED, SH ARE BILLS, CONFIRMATION LETTERS, STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS, LEDGER COPIES ABOUT THE EXISTENCE, GENUINENESS OF THE SALES AND PURCHASES MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8. THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE MERELY I TA NO. 2416 /HYD /201 8 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYD. : - 3 - : BASED ON THE ORDER OF SEBI, WITHOUT VERIFYING THE APPLICABILITY AND OTHERWISE OF THE SAME IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 9 . THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE SALE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE OTHER PARTY I.E., HSE SECURITIES LTD WAS NOT A PRE - ARRANGED TRANSACTION. 10 . THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE SHARE TRANSACTION S HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH M / S HSE SECURITIES LTD., A RECOGNISED STOCK BROKER MEMBER OF BSE AND THAT THEY ARE GENUINE. 1 1 . THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE IMPUGNED SHARES WERE OF LISTED COMPANIES AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID THE STIPU LATED TAX (STT) U/ S 111 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 12 . THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRE CIATED THE FACT THAT THE SALE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE OTHER PARTY WAS NOT A PRE - ARRANGED TRANSACTION, HENCE THE AO SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED THE SAME SALE TRANSACTION 13. THE LD . CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE AO HAS NO T DOUBTED THE PURCHASE OF SHARES AND CONVERSION OF SHARES INTO D - MAT FORM THROUGH A GOVERNMENT AGENCY, HENCE SALE CANNOT BE BOGUS. 14 . THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE SHARES WERE IN DEMATERIALISED FORM AND SOLD IN ELECTRONIC FORM AND THAT THEY WERE GENUINE. 15 THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ORDER THAT THERE IS NEXUS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PARTY WHO PURCHASED THE SHARE THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE. I TA NO. 2416 /HYD /201 8 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYD. : - 4 - : 16 THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE SELLER HAS MADE COMPENSATORY PAYMENT TO BUYER FOR THE PURCHASE OF SHARES. 17 . THE LD.CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE FOLLOWED THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN I .T.T.A. N O. 490 OF 2014 DATED 30.07.2014 IN THE CASE OF CIT - V, HYDERABAD V. SMT. AARTI MITTAL AND OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE GENUINE. 18 THE LD. CIT (1 \ ) ERRED IN M IS APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DECLARE D ANY INCOME UNDER 'INCOME DECLARATION SCHEME (IDS)' ON THIS SCRIP OF 'KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LIMITED', WHICH THE AO HAS CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. 19 THE LD. CIT (AL ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SEBI LATER HAS LIFTED THE BAN ON THE SCR IP 'KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD'. IT PROVES THAT THE SCRIP IS GENUINE. 20 THE ASSESSEE MAY ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY ANY OTHER POINTS TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 1.1 THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE, A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY INTO THE BUSINESS OF COMMODITIES TRADING, FILED ITS RETURN OF INC OME ON 17/10/2016 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 36,16,340/ - . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND ACCORDINGLY, STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE I TA NO. 2416 /HYD /201 8 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYD. : - 5 - : ASSESSEE, AGAINST WHICH, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR. 2.1 THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF ITS BUSINESS. HOWEVER, IN ITS COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) OF RS. 37,05,325/ - AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) OF THE IT ACT. HE F URTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF COMMODITIES AND SHARES TRADING AND HAD NEVER CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) IN EARLIER YEARS FOR THE AY 2013 - 14 AND 2014 - 15 AND, THEREFORE, ALL OF A SUDDEN EARNING OF SUCH HUGE EXEMPTED INCOME FORM LTCG REQUIRES FOR EXAMINATION. AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS, THE AO DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) WITH REGARD TO LTCG COMPUTED ON SALE OF SHARES, TREATING THE SAME AS PENNY STOCKS. WHILE DOING SO, THE AO BROUGHT ON RECORD THE RELEVAN T FACTS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE USED PENNY STOCK I.E., SHARES OF M / S.KAI L ASH AUTO FINANCE LTD FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVERTING HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTO TAX EXEMPT INCOME THROUGH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN THIS REGARD, THE AO RELIED UPON STATEMENT RE CORDED FROM MR. JAI K I SHAN PODDAR U/S. 131 OF THE ACT BY DDT(INV) KOLKATA WHEREIN MR. JAI KISHAN PODDAR, BEING DIRECTOR OF M / S. CONSORTIUM CAPITAL PRIVATE LTD AND BROKER WHO ARRANGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THROUGH PENNY STOCKS TO VARIOUS CLIENTS, HAS EXPLAI NED THE MODUS OPERANDI OF RIGGING OF THE I TA NO. 2416 /HYD /201 8 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYD. : - 6 - : PRICE OF THE PENNY STOCK IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR LTCG . 2.2 THE AO ALSO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,14,930/ - U/S 69C OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BROKER FOR ARRANGING TH E ABOVE TRANSACTION U/S 10(38). 3. WHEN, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AT LENGTH AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT . 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INTRODUCED HIS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY WAY OF LTCG. HE CONTENDED THAT THE SALE WAS MADE THROUGH DEMAT ACCOUNT AND RECOGNIZED STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY BANKING CHANNELS AND ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE AND SALES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SEBI HAS LIFTED THE BAN ON THE SCRIP M/S KAILASH AUTO FINANCE LTD. AND ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO LTCG CANNOT BE TERMED AS SHAM TRANSACTION. I TA NO. 2416 /HYD /201 8 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYD. : - 7 - : 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. W E HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES . THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 37,05,325/ - AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF SHARES. THE AO DISALLOWED THE SAME AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PROFITABILITY OF THE COMPANY OF WHICH SHARES WERE SOLD ARE VERY MEAGRE AMOUNT AND THE PRICE OF THE SHARES WER E GONE UP. THE ISSUE WAS EXAMINED IN DETAIL BY THE AO AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ROUTED HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY THROUGH SALE OF SHARES WITH HIGH PRICE AND CLAIMED LTGS UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT. 7.1 SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE COORDINATE BEN CH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (WHEREIN BOTH THE MEMBERS ARE PARTY) IN THE CASE OF SHRI TARUN KUMAR GOEL AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GOEL IN ITA NOS. 456 TO 458/HYD/2020, ORDER DATED 20/04/2012 WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SMT. KRISHNA DEVI AND OTHERS IN ITA NO. 125/2020 AND I TA NO. 2416 /HYD /201 8 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYD. : - 8 - : OTHERS, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 15/01/2021 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: 10. WE HAVE HEARD MR. HOSSAIN AT LENGTH AND GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO HIS CONTENTIONS, BUT ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SAME FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREINAFTER. 11. ON A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, IT IS EASILY DISCERNIBLE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HE AO HAD PROCEEDED PREDOMINANTLY ON THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS OF THE FINANCIALS OF M/S GOLD LINE INTERNATIONAL FINVEST LIMITED. HIS CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS AGAINST THE RESPONDENT ARE CHIEFLY ON THE STRENGTH OF THE ASTOUNDING 4849.2% JUMP IN SHARE PRICES O F THE AFORESAID COMPANY WITHIN A SPAN OF TWO YEARS, WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FINANCIALS. ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE DATA OBTAINED FROM THE WEBSITES, THE AO OBSERVES THAT THE QUANTUM LEAP IN THE SHARE PRICE IS NOT JUSTIFIED; THE TRADE PATTERN OF THE AFORESA ID COMPANY DID NOT MOVE ALONG WITH THE SENSEX; AND THE FINANCIALS OF THE COMPANY DID NOT SHOW ANY REASON FOR THE EXTRAORDINARY PERFORMANCE OF ITS STOCK. WE HAVE NOTHING ADVERSE TO COMMENT ON THE ABOVE ANALYSIS, BUT ARE CONCERNED WITH THE AXIOMATIC CONCLUSI ON DRAWN BY THE AO THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO CONVERT UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY CLAIMING FICTITIOUS LTCG, WHICH IS EXEMPT UNDER SECTION 10(38), IN A PRE - PLANNED MANNER TO EVADE TAXES. THE AO EXTENSIVELY RELIED UPON THE SEARCH AND SURVE Y OPERATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN KOLKATA, DELHI, MUMBAI AND AHMEDABAD ON PENNY STOCKS, WHICH SETS OUT THE MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ENTRIES OF BOGUS LTCG. HOWEVER, THE RELIANCE PLACE D ON THE REPORT, WITHOUT FURTHER CORROBORATION ON THE BASIS OF COGENT MATERIAL, DOES NOT JUSTIFY HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTION IS BOGUS, SHAM AND NOTHING OTHER THAN A RACKET OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. WE DO NOTICE THAT THE AO MADE AN ATTEMPT TO DELVE INTO THE QUESTION OF INFUSION OF RESPONDENT S UNACCOUNTED MONEY, BUT HE DID NOT DIG DEEPER. NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 133(6)/131 OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED TO M/S GOLD LINE INTERNATIONAL FINVEST LIMITED, BUT NOTHING EMERGED FROM THIS EFFORT. THE PAYMENT FO R THE SHARES IN QUESTION WAS MADE BY SH. SALASAR TRADING COMPANY. NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THIS ENTITY AS WELL, BUT WHEN THE NOTICES WERE RETURNED UNSERVED, THE AO DID I TA NO. 2416 /HYD /201 8 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYD. : - 9 - : NOT TAKE THE MATTER ANY FURTHER. HE THEREAFTER SIMPLY PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF THE FINANCIA LS OF THE COMPANY TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, AND THUS, FICTITIOUS. THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO, THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO CONVERT UNACCOUNTED MONEY BY TAKING FICTITIOUS LTCG IN A PRE - PLANNED MANNER, IS THEREFORE ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THIS FINDING IS THUS PURELY AN ASSUMPTION BASED ON CONJECTURE MADE BY THE AO. THIS FLAWED APPROACH FORMS THE REASON FOR THE LEARNED ITAT TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER TAX AUTHORITIE S. THE LEARNED ITAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE CONSPECTUS OF CASE AND THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD, HELD THAT THE RESPONDENT HAD SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS CAST UPON IT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS RECORDED THAT T HERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SHARES OF THE TWO COMPANIES WERE PURCHASED ONLINE, THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, AND THE SHARES WERE DEMATERIALIZED AND THE SALES HAVE BEEN ROUTED FROM DE - MAT ACCOUNT AND THE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECEIVE D THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS . THE ABOVE NOTED FACTORS, INCLUDING THE DEFICIENT ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO AND THE LACK OF ANY INDEPENDENT SOURCE OR EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND ANY OTHER PARTY, PREVAILED UPON THE ITAT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. BEFORE US, MR. HOSSAIN HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO ALLEGE THAT MONEY CHANGED HANDS BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND THE BROKER OR ANY OTHER PERSON, OR FURTHER THAT SOME PERSON PROVIDED THE ENTRY TO CON VERT UNACCOUNTED MONEY FOR GETTING BENEFIT OF LTCG, AS ALLEGED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL THAT COULD SUPPORT THE CASE PUT FORTH BY THE APPELLANT, THE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 12. MR. HOSSAINS SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE STARTLING SPIKE IN THE SHARE PRICE AND OTHER FACTORS MAY BE ENOUGH TO SHOW CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT CREATE SUSPICION; HOWEVER THE COURT HAS TO DECIDE AN ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE AND PROOF, AND NOT ON SUSPICION ALONE. THE THEORY OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR AND PREPONDERANCE OF P ROBABILITIES CANNOT BE CITED AS A BASIS TO TURN A BLIND EYE TO THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE RESPONDENT. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM THAT OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE CIT(A) WERE IN CONFLICT WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE MAY ONLY NOTE THAT THE I TA NO. 2416 /HYD /201 8 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYD. : - 10 - : SAID OBSERVATIONS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND LATER IN THE ORDER, THE CIT(A) ITSELF NOTES THAT THE BROKER DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE CIT(A) HAS ONLY APPROVED THE ORDER OF THE AO, FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING, AND RELYING UPON THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIG ATION WING. LASTLY, RELIANCE PLACED BY THE REVENUE ON SUMAN PODDAR V. ITO (SUPRA) AND SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT (SUPRA) IS OF NO ASSISTANCE. UPON EXAMINING THE JUDGMENT OF SUMAN PODDAR (SUPRA) AT LENGTH, WE FIND THAT THE DECISION THEREIN WAS ARRIVED AT IN LIGHT OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DEMONSTRATED BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE COURT, SUCH AS, INTER ALIA, LACK OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN TO SHOW ACTUAL SALE OF SHARES IN THAT CASE. ON SUCH BASIS, THE ITAT HAD RETURNED THE FINDING OF FACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, HOLDING THAT THE GENUINENESS OF SHARE TRANSACTION WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY HIM. HOWEVER, THIS IS QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTUAL MATRIX AT HAND. SIMILARLY, THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT (SUPRA) TOO TURNS ON ITS OWN SPECIFIC FACTS. TH E ABOVE - STATED CASES, THUS, ARE OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE CASE SOUGHT TO BE CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE. 13. THE LEARNED ITAT, BEING THE LAST FACT - FINDING AUTHORITY, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD, HAS RIGHTLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LO WER TAX AUTHORITIES ARE NOT ABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE THUS FIND NO PERVERSITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 14. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, NO QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR OUR CO NSIDERATION. 7.2 THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF EXEMPTION OF RS. 37,05,325/ - U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. I TA NO. 2416 /HYD /201 8 ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), HYD. : - 11 - : 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JUNE , 2021 . SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S. GODARA ) (L . P . SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDE RABAD, DATED : 29 TH JUNE , 20 2 1 . K V C OPY TO : 1 M/S ARUN KUMAR GOYAL (HUF), C/O P. MURALI & CO., CAS, 6 - 3 - 655/2/3, 1 ST FLOOR, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD 82 2 IT O , WARD 14 ( 5 ), HYDERABAD 500 004 3 C I T(A) 6 , HYDERABAD 4 PR. CIT - 6 , HYDERABAD 5 ITAT, DR, HYDERABAD. 6 GUARD FILE.