TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 565
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer in not granting the set off of Long Term Capital Loss amounting to Rs. 2,84,814/-without considering the facts and circumstances of the given case. 4. The Appellant pleads leave to add, amend, alter, or delete the said grounds of appeal." 2. The brief facts of the case are that the return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,30,754/- was filed on 27.08.2003. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a)of the Act. The case was subsequently reopened under section 147 and a notice under section 148 was issued on 30.03.2010 after duly recording the reasons for the same. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143 (2) was issued and served on the assessee. Necessity details were called upon from the assessee and after considering the details, the AO hold that since the assessee could not offer any explanation to the nature of transactions, sources of investment, mode of investment etc. Hence in the absence of any further details, the assessing officer computed the amount of Rs. 2,78,750/- as unexplained credits under section 68 of the Income tax Act and therefore added the same in the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f assessee. On the other hand ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by AO as well as CIT(A). 6. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by the lower authorities and after considering the same, we have observed that the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT 'Mumbai' has already dealt with the similar issue in ITA No. 1175/Mum/2012 and ITA No. 1176/Mum/2012 where in also the assessee's in those cases have dealt with the share transaction with the same companies. We referred the operative para of ITA No. 1175/Mum/2012 titled "Smt. Durgadevi Mudra vs. ITO" and the same is reproduced here in below: "I have heard the parties and perused the record. The Ld. Counsel submits that in respect of the 'Shares Scam' alleged to be involved by Shri Mukesh Chokshi actions were taken against many persons disallowing their claim in respect of long-term capital gain and shortterm capital gain. He submits that on identical set of facts the issue has been considered by the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel filed the copies of the Tribunal decision by way of compilation as under: i) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT -6 SOT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0-6-2002 before the DDIT (Inv.) with reference to certain transactions undertaken by Mr. Mukesh Chokshi and his group of companies, mainly Gold Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Richmond Securities and Alembic Securities, which are dealing in interconnected stock exchange/ NSC. Most of the enquiries pertains to the transactions in interconnected stock exchange and sale of shares In the company viz., Rashel Agro Tech Ltd. The enquiry in the said group of companies was with reference. to the issuance of bogus , purchase and sale bills and accommodating various parties in earning the capital gains. However, as submitted by the learned Counsel, the assessee's name is not figuring in the transactions which were originally enquired by the DDIT (Inv.) on 26-4-2002. Even though the modus operandi was explained and stated that they were getting 0.5% commission in arranging the transactions, nothing was concluded against the assessee in the said statement. The Assessing Officer in the course of assessment again recorded the statement under section 131 on 9-11-2006 in which question No. 4 and 5 which are extracted in the assessment order itself. The main reliance is on question No. 5 which is as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer is to deny the assessee the benefit of long term capital gain and subsequent deduction under section 54EC of the Act as the assessee invested the capital gains in REC Bonds. We do not see any reason to agree with the findings of the' Assessing Officer and also the findings of the CIT (A). In fact, the CIT (A) has went ahead in treating the entire transaction as bogus and confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer while holding "this will be more for an unexplained receipt of money of the appellant. Hence, Assessing Officer had rightly added the amount by and the action of the Assessing Officer in making this addition is confirmed treating it as STCG)). In arriving at this conclusion, the CIT (A) presumed that assessee could have paid full payment of 16 lakhs by way of cash which was not the case of the Assessing Officer either. There is no evidence even to presume these observations of the CIT (A) as stated above. 7. The facts are identical in this case as in the case of Chandrakant Babulal shah (supra). I hold that the assessee has proved the genuineness of the share transactions and there is no justification to disallow the claim of the assessee in respect of th....