Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3 Mumbai v. Ziauddin A Siddique

SANTOSHSUBHASHKULKARNIDigitally signed bySANTOSH SUBHASHKULKARNIDate: 2022.03.0817:39:29 +0530 Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 2012 OF 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – 3 Mumbai ...Appellant Versus Ziauddin A Siddique ...Respondent Mr. Sham Walve, for the Appellant. Mr. Sameer Dalal, for the Respondent. CORAM:K. R. SHRIRAM &N. J. JAMADAR, JJDATED:4[th] MARCH, 2022 -PC: 1.The following question of law is proposed: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justifiedin deleting the addition of Rs.1,03,33,925/- made by AOu/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that theshares were bought/acquired from off market sourcesand thereafter the same was demated and registered instock exchange and increase in share price ofRamkrishna Fincap Ltd. is not supported by thefinancials and, therefore, the amount of LTCG ofRs.1,03,33,925/- claimed by the assessee is nothing butunaccounted income which was rightly added u/s 68 ofthe I. T. Act, 1961?” 2.We have considered the impugned order with theassistance of the learned Counsels and we have no reason to interfere. There is a finding of fact by the Tribunal that thetransaction of purchase and sale of the shares of the allegedpenny stock of shares of Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. (“RFL”) is donethrough stock exchange and through the registered StockBrokers. The payments have been made through bankingchannels and even Security Transaction Tax (“STT”) has alsobeen paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized thedocumentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. TheTribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegationagainst assessee that it has participated in any price rigging inthe market on the shares of RFL. 3.Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of theTribunal. 4.Mr. Walve placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Courtin Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 vs. NRAIron & Steel (P.) Ltd.[1]but that does not help the revenue in asmuch as the facts in that case were entirely different. 5.In our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversityor applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when thefacts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test isapplied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law. 6.The appeal is devoid of merits and it is dismissed with noorder as to costs. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.][K. R. SHRIRAM, J.]