The Ahmedabad Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) ruled in favor of the assessee, deleting an addition of Rs. 27,61,030 made for capital gains incurred in the script of Looks Health Services Limited.
The appeal was also against the CIT(A) order dated 20.05.2024, which upheld the AO’s addition of Rs. 1,65,662 for 6% commission under section 69C.
The Assessee-appellant Ashokbhai Shankerlal Shah, represented by his counsel S N Divatia challenged the CIT(A) order dated 20.05.2024, which confirmed the AO’s addition of Rs. 27,61,030 for capital gains incurred in the script of Looks Health Services Limited.
Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) against the assessee, for an amount of Rs. 29,26,692.
The assessee challenged the CIT(A) order, which confirmed the AO’s assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B.
The AO observed that the assessee had not provided sufficient explanation for the investment, leading to an addition of Rs. 29,26,692.
Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here
The Appellant contended that he appellant has not been provided enough opportunity and the time of 2 days was given but the date provided by the A.O. was a national holiday or even the adjournment had not taken up and so the order passed u/s 147 read along with 144B is incorrect.
However, the ITAT reviewed the order of the CIT(A) and evidence provided by the assessee, including the grounds of appeal, which showed that the AO’s addition of Rs. 27,61,030 under section 69C was not justified and deleted the addition.
The Tribunal heard the rival contentions raised by C Dharani Nath, counsel representing Respondents and reviewed the facts of the case, noting that the AO’s initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was not justified.
Get a Handbook on TDS Including TCS as Amended up to Finance Act 2024, Click Here
Also, the ITAT found that the AO’s addition of Rs. 27,61,030 under section 69C was not justified, and the assessee had provided all necessary details for the shares sold through a d-mat account.
The two-member bench comprising Dr. BRR Kumar (Vice-President) and Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member) noted that the issue taken up by the assessee had been squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.417/Ahd/2019 dated 08.12.2023, and therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
