Ruchi Jain Vs Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Ruchi Jain, filed her return for the Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring income of Rs. 7,54,526/-. She also earned Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 27,83,690/- on the sale of scrips of Kappac Pharma Ltd. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 10,42,05,500/- by making various additions and disallowances. The assessee appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 27,83,695/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act, along with a consequential addition of Rs. 55,674/- being alleged commission @2%, on account of alleged unexplained expenditure.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 27,83,695/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act on account of alleged unexplained money and the consequential addition of 55,674/- being alleged commission @2%, along with the addition on account of alleged unexplained expenditure, was rightly sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).
• 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of 27,83,695/- made by the Ld. AO, along with the consequential addition of 55,674/- being alleged commission @2%, on account of alleged unexplained expenditure, without appreciating that the appellant's name did not appear in the alleged price-rigging activities and in the absence of any incriminating material linking the appellant with such transactions.
• 3. Whether the Ld. AO erred in making the addition of ₹27,83,695/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act, along with the consequential addition of 55,674/- being alleged commission @2%, on account of alleged unexplained expenditure, without properly considering the documentary evidence furnished by the appellant in support of the exemption claimed under Section 10(38) of the Act.
• 4. Whether the Ld. AO erred in making the addition of 27,83,695/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act, along with the consequential addition of 55,674/- being alleged commission @2% on account of alleged unexplained expenditure, without conducting any independent enquiry and merely relying upon the report of the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• DCIT Vs. Surya Vanijya Pvt. Ltd.

  DELHI BENCH ‘B’ NEW DELHI benchAY 2014-15Dismissed

• M/S JHS Sevendgaard Laboratories Ltd. Vs. DCIT

  DELHI BENCH ‘E’ NEW DELHI benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Late Arvind Kumar Kotawal vs ACIT, Circle 70(1), New Delhi

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• A B Exports Private Limited Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2008-09Allowed

• Bharti Chirania vs. DCIT, Circle - 23(1)

  Mumbai bench

• M/s. Everlike Mercandise Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2012-13Allowed