Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-12 v. Ms. Reeshu Goel

$~44 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA 173/2021 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12 ..... Appellant ThroughMr. Sanjay Kumar with Ms. EashaKadiyan, Advs. versus MS. REESHU GOEL Through None. ..... Respondent % Date of Decision: 14[th]December, 2021 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVING CHAWLA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 7[th]October,2019 in ITA No. 1691/Del/2019 passed by the Delhi Bench of ITAT.2.Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the ITAT erred indeleting the addition of Rs.1,77,25,158/- made by the Assessing Officerunder Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘Act’] on account of bogusLong Term Capital Gain on penny stock and the addition of Rs.1,77,251/-onaccountofcommissionpaidbytheassesseeforobtainingaccommodation entry. ITA 173/2021 Page 1 of 3 3.Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the ITAT failed toappreciate that the transaction entered by the assessee for purchase of sharesof CCL International Ltd. are in the nature of bogus or colourabletransaction resulting in huge capital gain to the assessee. He states that theITAT erred in holding that to prove a bogus or colourable Transaction therehas to be an individual inquiry by the Assessing Officer ignoring the factthat the Assessing Officer had referred to an inquiry report of InvestigationWing Kolkata where certain brokers have admitted that they had providedaccommodation entries in the scrip of CCL International Ltd. to thirdparties. 4.Learned Counsel for the Appellant lastly states that the ITAT failed toappreciate that the company did not have much financial worth to justifyprice hike of its shares. 5.A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Tribunal has allowedthe respondent-assessee’s appeal on cogent grounds. 6.In the impugned order the Tribunal has held that no enquiry had beenconducted and the assessee’s broker had not even been examined by theauthorities below before passing the impugned orders. The ITAT also heldthat the scrips of M/s CCL International Ltd. were freely traded at theBombay Stock Exchange between the years 2011 and 2014 and the assesseehad purchased the shares in 2011 and sold the same in 2012. The ITAT alsofound that the revenue from the operation of M/s CCL International Ltd.from March, 2010 to March, 2012 was between Rs.55.25 crores to Rs.79crores and the share price during the period 2010 to 2014 had increased fromRs.50 per share to Rs.609 per share. ITA 173/2021 7.This Court is of the view that there is no perversity in any of thefindings given by the Tribunal. 8.The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. vs.Thawar Das (through LRs), (1999) 7 SCC 303 has reiterated that underSection 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the jurisdiction of the HighCourt to interfere with the orders passed by the Courts below is confined tohearing on substantial question of law and interference with finding of thefact is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence. The SupremeCourt in Hero Vinoth (Minor) vs. Seshammal, (2006) 5 SCC 545 has alsoheld that “in a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferencesof fact are possible, the one drawn by the lower appellate court will not beinterfered by the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approachis not permissible.” It has also held that there is a difference betweenquestion of law and a “substantial question of law”. Consequently, thisCourt finds that there is no perversity in the findings of the ITAT. 9.Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. MANMOHAN, J DECEMBER 14, 2021/AS NAVIN CHAWLA, J ITA 173/2021