AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:
This appeal and cross objection are preferred by the revenue and assessee respectively against the order dated 07.07.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-31, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & Order No.: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078252493(1) arising out of the order dated 27.12.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the ITO, Ward 50(4), Kolkata for AY: 2014-15.
At the time of hearing although, adjournment was requested on behalf of the Ld. AR, however, after going through the grounds raised in the impugned order, we consider it appropriate to hear Ld. DR, and Ld. DR relied the grounds in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) submitting that, Ld. AO had rightly concluded that the scrip involved of M/s SRK Industries Limited had given rise to bogus LTCG claim.
As we go through the findings of Ld. CIT(A), we find that admittedly, the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.64,91,830/- on sale of shares of M/s SRK Industries Limited had arisen out of a transaction where assessee had acquired shares through a SEBI registered broker and sold through recognized stock exchange with all transactions routed through banking channels and all supporting documents like purchase, sale bills, demat statement and bank statement were on record.
Ld. CIT(A) has concluded that merely relying Investigation Wing report, the AO has drawn conclusion of the scrip being a penny stock. Ld. CIT(A) has then relied the decisions of the Tribunal and of the High Court wherein transactions involving the shares of M/s SRK Industries Limited under similar circumstances were found to be genuine transactions and the scrip was not one for which allegations of bogus LTCG could be sustained.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we find no infirmity in the findings of Ld. CIT(A) and the grounds raised by the department have no substance.The cross objection of the assessee is merely supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A). Thus, the appeal of department is dismissed and the cross objection of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.