Case Number: ITA 5333/DEL/2019
Appellant: Poonam Garg, New Delhi
Respondent: ACIT, Circle-62(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Result: Final Tribunal Order
Case Filed On: 2019-06-11
Date of Order: 2019-09-25
Pronounced On: 2019-09-25
The case involves an appeal filed by Poonam Garg against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Circle-62(1), New Delhi, for the assessment year 2014-15. The case revolves around the assessment of alleged bogus long-term capital gains from share transactions, resulting in a significant tax demand.
Poonam Garg filed her return of income on 30.07.2014, declaring a total income of ₹7,532,950. The ACIT selected her return for complete scrutiny due to suspicious transactions related to long-term capital gains on shares. The ACIT found that the appellant had earned long-term capital gains of ₹130,386,105 from the shares of Trinity Trade Link Ltd., Sharp Trade, and Kapac Pharma Ltd. The ACIT concluded that these capital gains were bogus and added ₹136,100,188 to her income, including an alleged commission of 3% on the gains.
Poonam Garg, through her representative, Shir SB Gupta, CA, contested the assessment order passed by the ACIT under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act on 30.12.2016. She raised 17 grounds of appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. One of the primary grounds was the challenge to the validity of the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, which she claimed was not served within the stipulated time, rendering the assessment order illegal.
The respondent, represented by Smt Naina Soin Kapil, Senior Departmental Representative (DR), maintained that the notice under Section 143(2) was duly issued and served. The respondent argued that the capital gains declared by the appellant were indeed bogus, supporting the ACIT’s addition of ₹136,100,188 to her income.
The tribunal, comprising Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member, and Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member, observed the following:
The tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order on the appellant’s grounds, particularly the jurisdictional ground concerning the notice under Section 143(2). The tribunal instructed the CIT(A) to dispose of the matter expeditiously, considering the substantial tax demand involved.
The tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to reconsider and adjudicate on all grounds raised by the appellant. The stay petition filed by the appellant became infructuous as the case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
Final Judgment: The appeal of Poonam Garg was allowed for statistical purposes, with the case remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 25/09/2019.
Signed by:
Amit Shukla, Judicial Member
Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member
Dated: 25/09/2019
Poonam Garg vs. ACIT: Dispute on Bogus Capital Gains for AY 2014-15
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform