2017 (12) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... raising the following questions of law:- "(A) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct to confirm the proceedings u/s 148 of the Act against the appellant? (B) Whether the assessee have ignored the mode of purchase of 3500 shares of M/s KRS Financial Limited through M/s S.K. Garg and Company Delhi per contract note dated 05.04.1996 and Bill No. M-85 dated 15.04.1996 as well as the letter of K.R.S. Financial Limited dated 28.08.1996 regarding transfer of shares in the name of the appellant and also corresponding the contract note dated 30.05.1997 of Surinder Singh Mehta for sale of shares by Bill No. 272 dated 20.06.1997, the I.T.A.T. rightly held the sale of 3500 shares was bogus one? ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 13.06.1996. The said shares were then claimed to have been sold through another broker S.S. Mehta on 30.05.1997 @ Rs. 175 per share. While the assessee had disclosed the purchase of aforesaid shares through cash payment, it received the sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 6,06,069/-, through cheque. It then appears that reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee under Section 147 of the Act on the basis of reasons to believe recorded in pursuance of information received by the Assessing Officer from the DDIT (Inv, Gurgaon) dated 10.03.2003. According to that information, the broker S.S. Mehta had been investigated in certain other proceedings wherein he allegedly made a statement of having provided accommodation entries a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ieving the claim of purchase and sale of shares in question in absence of cogent and reliable evidence to establish genuineness of the transaction. Then, the Tribunal further found that the assessee had himself surrendered the amount of Rs. 6,06,069/- during the course of the assessment proceedings and therefore it did not remain open to the assessee to dispute the correctness of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Sri Suyash Agarwal, learned counsel for the assessee submits that the CIT (Appeals) had categorically found that the broker S.S. Mehta had never stated that the he had provided any accommodation entry to the assessee. Therefore, in his submission, the addition could not have been sustained merely on the admission made ....