Abhinav Agarwal, Delhi vs Dcit, Circle- 1, Meerut on 4 January, 2022
• The ld. AR arg ued that it is not in dispute that the
assessee has purchased the shares and purchase
consideration has been paid and finally the shares of M/s
Unno Industries have been sold at the rate quoted on the
Stock Exchange and the amounts have been received
which are rightfully eligible for ex emption u/ s 10(38).
• The doubting of the revenue authorities is purely on the
grounds of suspicion and the statement of people recorded
who are unconnected with the transaction.
• Further, he relied on the order of the Co-ordinate Bench
ITAT Kolkata in the case of Sumaysh Agarawal
11 ITA Nos. 3640 & 3641/Del/2018
Abhinav Agarwal & Abhinav Agrawal HUF
Vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Kolkata ITA No.1790/Kol/2018 and
argued that the SEBI has exonerated and the final enq uiry
about the trade of the shares. At this juncture, we would
like to clarify that the order of SEBI dealt with the shares
of M/ s Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. b ut not with the shares of
M/s Unno Industries Ltd. which are involved in this case.
Hence the arguments of the Ld.AR cannot be held to be
valid in these scrips.