Addition for investment in penny stock company remitted to record how assessee involved in promoting company and how inflated shares of company
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3224 (2020) (01) ITAT
Important case law relied upon by the parties:
Kanhaiyalal & Sons (HUF) v. ITO
In the instant case, the appeal was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
The assessee had claimed exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) in respect of long term capital gains arising out of sale of shares of a limited company.
However, the Assessing Officer (AO) placing his reliance on the investigation report of Directorate of Investigation and disallowed the exemption on the ground that the company in which the assessee invested was a penny stock company.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee contended that a copy of the said investigation report was not furnished to the assessee. Therefore, it was prayed that an opportunity may be given to the assessee by remitting back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal observed that the AO had not brought on record how the assessee was involved in promoting the penny stock company and how the assessee was involved in inflating the shares of the company.
Also, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that in a case, on identical circumstances, the Tribunal had directed that apart from providing assessee the copy of the investigation report, the Assessing Officer shall bring on record the role of the assessees in promoting the company and the relationship of the assessees, if any with the promoters, role of the assessees in inflating the price of shares, etc.
As a result, the Tribunal opined that the matter needed to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below were set aside and the issue raised by the assessee with regard to deduction under Section 10(38) of the Act was remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The Assessing Officer was directed to examine the matter as directed by the Tribunal in the identical case and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
Mere CBDT Instructions cannot absolve individuals of their obligation to explain the source and nature of their gold holdings, even…
Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations December 2026 ICSI has invited interested members to enroll as General Observers for…
ITAT answers some important and inter-related issues relating to deduction u/s 80IA In a recent judgment, ITAT has dealt with…
Carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return, it is only the set off in subsequent year…
Where sales are duly recorded in books and VAT returns, to treat it bogus sales, AO must bringing cogent adverse…
Expenses to celebrate Diwali with staff creates a goodwill and, therefore amounts to expenses incurred for the purpose of business…