Case Number: ITA 5442/DEL/2019
Appellant: Prateek Ajay Aggarwal, New Delhi
Respondent: ACIT Circle-52(1), New Delhi
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Case Filed On: 2019-06-19
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-08-24
Pronounced On: 2022-08-24
Prateek Ajay Aggarwal, based in New Delhi, filed an appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-18, dated 07.06.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The primary issue in this case was the addition of long-term capital gains and the alleged commission payment, which the appellant claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act.
The appellant, Prateek Ajay Aggarwal, contended that the addition of Rs. 17,52,930/- as long-term capital gains and Rs. 87,647/- as commission payment by the Assessing Officer (AO) was unjustified. He argued that the gains were from shares sold on a recognized stock exchange and should be exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The AO, however, treated the transaction as non-genuine and made additions under section 68 of the Act, assessing the income at Rs. 41,88,132/-.
The case was presented before the Delhi Bench “SMC” of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), comprising Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member. The hearing took place on 17.08.2022, and the order was pronounced on 24.08.2022.
The appellant, represented by his counsel Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, CA, argued that the addition made by the AO was arbitrary and without considering the facts of the case. The appellant claimed that the transactions were carried out through proper banking channels and as per the rules and regulations of the stock exchange. He also provided evidence such as purchase bills, DMAT statements, financial ledgers, and contract notes to support the genuineness of the long-term capital gains.
The respondent, represented by Sh. Om Prakash, opposed the grounds of appeal and relied on the orders of the authorities below. The respondent argued that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions and that the additions were justified based on the investigation and findings of the AO.
After reviewing the case records and hearing the arguments, the tribunal upheld the findings of the AO and the CIT(A). The tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide any new material to rebut the findings of the authorities below. The tribunal found that the authorities had examined the issue elaborately and concluded that the transactions were not genuine. Therefore, the tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant.
The case between Prateek Ajay Aggarwal and ACIT Circle-52(1), New Delhi, underscores the importance of substantiating the genuineness of transactions, especially when claiming exemptions under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act. The tribunal’s decision to dismiss the appeal highlights the necessity for appellants to provide clear and convincing evidence to support their claims. In this case, the lack of such evidence led to the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the additions made by the AO.
In conclusion, the appeal filed by Prateek Ajay Aggarwal was dismissed, and the tribunal affirmed the findings of the AO and the CIT(A). This case serves as a reminder for taxpayers to maintain and present comprehensive documentation to substantiate their claims and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th August, 2022.
Signed:
(KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER
Copy forwarded to:
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Prateek Ajay Aggarwal vs ACIT Circle-52(1), New Delhi: Dispute Over Long Term Capital Gains
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