LTCG on sale of shares under the Income Tax Act

This case involves an appeal by Sh. Vinay Kumar Dhingra (HUF) against the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision. The assessee contested an addition of Rs. 41,00,925/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the CIT(A) on the sale of Cressanda Solutions Ltd. shares, arguing that the Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) were non-genuine. The assessee contended that sufficient supporting documents were provided and the addition was based on conjecture. An additional sum of Rs. 2,10,046/- for estimated brokerage was also disputed.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
[Through Video Conferencing]

ITA No.6388/Del./2017
Assessment Year: 2014-15

Sh. Vinay Kumar Dhingra
(HUF),
J-15, First Floor, Kirti
Nagar,
New Delhi
PAN :AAFHV3779Q
(Appellant) 

Vs. 

ITO,
Ward-49(1),
New Delhi
(Respondent) 

Appellant by None
Respondent by Sh. Farhat Khan, Sr.DR

Date of hearing 07.06.2021
Date of pronouncement 28.06.2021

ORDER

PER O.P. KANT, AM:

 This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 23/08/2017 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-17, New Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15 raising following grounds:

1. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while upholding the decision of the Id. AO of making additions of Rs.41,00,925/- on sale of shares of Cressanda Solutions Ltd. as non- genuine LTCG without appreciating the submissions of the assessee. As such, the addition of Rs.41,00,925/- may please be deleted. 

2. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law while not considering that the Id. AO has made an addition of Rs.41,00,925/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the supporting documents placed on record including allotment letter, acknowledgment of bank regarding request for dematerialization, contract note for sale, ledger account of assessee in the books of broker, Demat account etc. As such, the addition of Rs.41,00,925/- may please be deleted.

3. That the Id. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case while not appreciating that the addition made Ld. AO is merely on the basis of conjecture and surmises without bringing on record any specific cogent material against the assessee. As such, the addition of Rs.41,00,925/- may please be deleted.

4. That the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Ld. AO has erred in law while making addition to the income of assessee without confronting the assessee with the alleged Statements or evidences wherein name of the assessee has been mentioned, on the basis of which allegation has been made that LTCG on sale of shares of Cressanda Solutions Ltd. of Rs.41,00,925/- is non-genuine. As such, the addition of Rs.41,00,925/- may please be deleted.

5. That the ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider while upholding the addition of Rs.2,10,046/- on account of brokerage or commission, being estimated @ 5% by the Ld. AO merely on the basis of presumption without even providing any opportunity to the assessee to provide explanation for the same. As such, the addition of Rs.2,10,046/- may please be deleted.

6. That the Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while upholding the decision of the Id. AO without considering the additional evidences filed by the assessee. As such the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice and therefore, the addition of Rs.43,10,971/- may please be deleted.

7. That the assessee crave to add, alter, delete & modify any of the of hearing.

To know more in details find the attachment file