C/TAXAP/204/2020 ORDER IN HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 204 of 2020 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 Versus PARASBEN KASTURCHAND KOCHAR Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for Appellant(s) No. 1 for Opponent(s) No. 1 CORAM:HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA Date : 17/09/2020 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short Act 1961 ) is at instance of Revenue and is directed against order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench dated 20-2-2020 in ITA No.549/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15. Revenue has proposed following question of law for consideration of this Court:- Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in law and on facts in deleting addition of Rs.9,70,468/- made on account of LTCG claimed as exempt u/s. 10(38) of Act without appreciating fact that transaction was pre-arranged as well as sham and was carried out through penny scripts companies / paper companies? 2. We take notice of fact that issue in present appeal is whether assessee earned long term capital gain Page 1 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 22 11:52:56 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/204/2020 ORDER through transactions with bogus companies. In this regard, finding of fact recorded by Tribunal in paras 9, 10 and 11 reads thus:- 9. In our considered opinion, in such case assessee cannot be held that he earned Long Term Capital gain through bogus company when he has discharged his onus by placing all relevant details and some of shares also remained in account of appellant after earning of long term capital gain. 10. Learned A.R. contention is that no statement of Investigation Wing was given to assessee which has any reference against assessee. 11. In support of its contention, learned A.R. also cited order of Coordinate Bench in ITA No.62/Ahd/2018 in matter of Mohan Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO wherein ITAT has held that A.O. should have granted opportunity to cross examine person on whose statement notice was issued to assessee for bogus long term capital gain. But in this case, neither statement was supplying to assessee nor cross examination was allowed by learned A.O. Therefore, in our considered opinion, assessee has discharged his onus and no addition can be sustained in hands of assessee. 3. Thus, Tribunal has recorded finding of fact that assessee discharged his onus of establishing that transactions were fair and transparent and further, all relevant details with regard to such transactions were furnished before Income Tax authorities and Tribunal also took notice of fact that some of shares also remained in account of appellant. Page 2 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 22 11:52:56 IST 2020 C/TAXAP/204/2020 ORDER 4. We take notice of fact that assessee has Demat Account maintained with ICICI Securities Ltd. and has also furnished details of such bank transactions with regard to purchase of shares. In last, Tribunal took notice of fact that statements recorded by investigation wing of Revenue with regard to Tax entry provided were informed to assessee despite giving him opportunity to meet such allegation. In overall view of matter, we believe that proposed question cannot be termed as substantial question of law for purpose of maintaining appeal under Section 260-A of Act, 1961. 5. In result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. (VIKRAM NATH, CJ) (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) NAIR SMITA V./Radhan Page 3 of 3 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 22 11:52:56 IST 2020 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 v. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar