Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Bodu Ram Sharma
2026 Latest Caselaw 1466 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Bodu Ram Sharma on 24 February, 2026

Author: Rajesh Shankar

Bench: Rajesh Shankar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Tax Appeal No.14 of 2024
                              -----

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ranchi.

.......... Appellant.

-Versus-

Shri Bodu Ram Sharma .......... Respondent.

-----

CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR

-----

For the Appellant : Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, Sr. S.C. Mr. Anurag Vijay, Jr. S.C. For the Respondent: Ms. Neha Pandey, Advocate

-----

Order No.03 Date: 24.02.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. I.A. No.12416 of 2024 seeks condonation of delay of 9 days in

filing this appeal.

3. We have perused the interim application and we are satisfied that

the delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay is also not

inordinate and since there is sufficient cause shown, we condone

the same.

4. The aforesaid I.A. is disposed of.

5. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we take

up the appeal for admission.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that similar appeal i.e.,

Tax Appeal No.03 of 2025 has already been admitted by order

dated 17th November, 2025. He places the said order for our

perusal.

7. Accordingly, we admit this appeal on the following substantial

questions of law:

a. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in

law, the learned Tribunal has erred in deleting the addition

of Rs.24,93,805/- made by the Assessing Officer after

treating the claim of LTCG exemption under section 10(38)

of the Act as bogus on the strength of the detailed

investigations carried out by the Assessing Officer himself

during the course of the assessment as well as by the

Investigation Directorate, Kolkata, earlier?

b. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in

law, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying solely on the

judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

of CIT v. Arun Kumar Agarwal (HUF) where the facts of the

case were clearly and eminently distinguishable?

c. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in

law, the judgment of the learned Tribunal suffers from

perversity as the learned Tribunal has ignored the collusive

dealings of the Assessee and the Stock Brokers for the

purpose of staking a bogus and pre-arranged claim of LTCG

benefit under section 10(38) of the Act?

8. Tag this appeal with Tax Appeal No.03 of 2025.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent waives service on behalf of

the respondent.

(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.) 24 February, 2026 th Sanjay/Rohit Uploaded on 24.02.2026