Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. None appeared on behalf of assessee despite several hearings afforded from time to time. Ld. DR representing the Revenue was ready to argue the case. On perusal of Grounds of Appeal, it was observed that the present appeal can be heard on the basis of material held on record and after hearing Ld. DR. Accordingly, the appeal was heard and being disposed of by this order.

3. Briefly stated the facts are such that the assessee-individual filed his return of income on 27.07.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. 9,57,130/- from salary and interest. In the return, the assessee also declared a long- term capital gain of Rs. 69,78,526/- earned from sale of equity shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. exempted u/s 10(38) of the act. The assessee claimed to have purchased 15,000 shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. for Rs. 45,000/-; sold the same for Rs. 70,23,526/- and thereby earned a whopping capital gain of Rs. 69,78,526/-. Apprehending the capital gain as suspicious, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued from time to time. During assessment-proceeding, the Ld. AO asked the assessee to prove the capital gain, in response to which the assessee made a detailed submission. Observing that the assessee has made an unrealistic non-taxable capital gain of Rs. 69,78,526/- on a very small investment of just Rs. 45,000/- and that Shri Parmanand Sachdev Assessment year 2014-15 too within a short period of just 15 months by indulging in the transactions of what is called "penny stock", the Ld. AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) by order dated 20.12.2016 after making a total addition of Rs. 71,18,094/- on two counts, viz. (i) Ld. AO treated the capital gain of Rs. 69,78,526/- as bogus receipt u/s 68 of the Act, and also (ii) Ld. AO added a sum of Rs. 1,39,568/- on account of estimated brokerage-cost incurred by assessee out of undisclosed sources for arranging bogus capital gain. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assesse filed appeal to Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), however, dismissed appeal and did not grant any relief. Now, the assessee has assailed the order of Ld. CIT(A) in this appeal filed before us.

Ground No. 2 to 4:

7. By means of these Grounds, the assessee has challenged the twin-

additions made by Ld. AO, viz. (i) addition of Rs. 69,78,526/- in respect of bogus capital gain, and (ii) addition of Rs. 1,39,568/- on account of estimated brokerage cost incurred by assessee out of unexplained sources.

8. Before proceeding further, we would like to narrate the details of the transactions done by assessee as culled out from the orders of lower- authorities. The assessee claims to have purchased 15,000 shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. @ Rs. 3/- per share for a total consideration of Rs. 45,000/- on 22.11.2011 through M/s Arihant Capital Marketing Limited. The purchase consideration is stated to have been paid in cash. The shares were subsequently claimed to have been sold on different dates from 17.04.2013 to 08.05.2013 for a sum of Rs. 70,23,526/-, resulting into a exempted capital gain of Rs. 69,78,526/-.

9. During assessment-proceeding, Ld. AO confronted the assessee about these transactions and made following observations:

(i) The assessee has earned capital gain from the transactions of shares of Turbotech Engineering Ltd., which falls within the category of a "Penny stock" as per the information available with the Income-tax Department and this scrip has been used by persons to provide / obtain exempted capital gain u/s 10(38) of the act.
(iii) Ld. AO examined the financials of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. and observed that the market capitalization of the company is very small and the P&L A/c shows that the company had no business during last 5 years. He further observed that the company had suffered losses during the period. He observed that the weak financials demonstrate that the company is having neither fundamentals nor potential.

(iv) Ld. AO analysed the stock-market data of the share of Turbotech Engineering Ltd. and observed that the market price is unrealistic and not related to the financial results of the company. Ld. AO observed that the price of share was initially very low, which then continuously increased. Thereafter, the price again fell down and came to initial stage. Ld. AO, thus, observed that the market price of the share was artificially and intentionally rigged by about 15507% when there was no related-growth in the company with an objective to provide accommodation entry.