TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 pertains to A. Y. 2009-10 and Appeal in ITA.880/Bang/2016 pertains to A. Y. 2010-11. 02. Facts giving rise to these appeals lie within the same compass and hence these appeals are disposed off through a common order. 03. Assessees herein who are general merchants and commission agents had filed their return for impugned assessment years and were assessed u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' in short). Reopening was done in each of this case by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Thereupon assessees requested the AO to treat the returns originally filed as those filed in compliance to such notice. Assessees maintained books under mercantile system and the accounts were audited u/s.44AB of the Act. All the assessees had c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....worn statement, Shri. Mukesh Chokshi stated that he was providing accommodation entries to various assessees. It seems names of some persons along with their PA numbers were mentioned in the statement given by Shri. Chokshi, and such names included that of the assessees. This information was provided by CIT, Gulbarga through a letter dt.21.03.2013. Based on the said statement AO required the assessee to explain why exemption for long term capital gains claimed by the assessees should be given. As per the AO, the transactions giving rise to the claim of capital gains were bogus. AO also required the assessees to explain why shares were purchased at much lower price than the listed price as on the date of purchase. Reply of the assessees was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mukesh Chokshi included their names and PAN in the statement given by him. 06. However CIT (A) was not impressed by the replies. According to him, SEBI had banned all off-market bogus deals including cross deals vide circular dt.14.09.1999. Further as per the CIT (A) confirmation from the concerned stock-brokers were not produced by the assessees. He thus confirmed the orders of AO. 07. Now before us, Ld. AR strongly assailing the orders of authorities below submitted that Shri. Mukesh Chokshi was in no way related to the assessees. As per the Ld. AR assessees could not be put on peril for statements given by third parties, who were alien to the deals. Shares were purchased from stock-brokers. Purchases were made off-line, but were s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... prices were paid and concerned stock-brokers had delivered the shares. Assessees had also got the shares dematised later. Statement given by a party who was totally unrelated to the assessees could not be taken as evidence for disbelieving the evidence furnished by the assessees. In a similar situation, Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kan Singh Rathore (supra) had held as under : This appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 3.4.2014 passed by learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur affirming order dated 25.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur. The facts necessary to be noticed for adjudication of this appeal are that an assessment order....