2019 (4) TMI 1363

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aking/confirming the aforesaid addition are unjust, unlawful and based upon incorrect appreciations of the facts on record and the submissions of the appellant have not been considered in right perspective. b) That nothing has been brought on record to show any linking between the alleged entry operators whose statements have been relied upon and the appellant. The evidences and arguments used by the authorities below are generic in nature and can in no sense be related to the appellant. c) That the authorities below have made & confirmed the impugned addition without any basis and without brining on record any corroborative material found during the course of assessment proceedings and also by completely ignoring the well established law that no addition can be made solely on the basis of statements recorded on oath during the course of survey conducted by the Investigation Wing of Income Tax, Kolkata and departmentally communicated to the A.O., without making his own independent enquiry and efforts. Thus the additions made solely on the basis of the statements recorded behind the back of the appellant deserve to be deleted. d) That the statement of Sh. Jai Kishan Poddar, as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spectfully craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal. 3. I will first take up the appeal in the case of Anip Rastogi, being ITA No. 3809/Del/2018 (AY 2015-16) and my finding given therein will apply mutatis mutandis in other appeal, since similar facts and findings are permeating in other appeal also. The assessee is aggrieved by addition of Rs. 22,28,172/- made u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of credits of sale of penny stock. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual earning rental income, income from medical profession and interest on deposits with banks, during the relevant year. The assessee filed his ITR for the relevant year on 22.9.2015, declaring a total income of Rs. 9,39,250/-. The return filed him was selected for scrutiny assessment which were completed vide order dated 18.12.2017, passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act"), making an addition of Rs. 22,28,172/-, holding that the exempt long term capital gain earned by the assessee on sale of shares of M/s CCL International Ltd., was not genuine and the same was bogus. Against the assessment order, the Assessee appealed ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s filed before the CIT(A), Meerut; Photocopy of the stock trading details as downloaded from website of BSE India as filed before the CIT(A); Financial details of M/s CCL International Ltd. for FY's 2012-13 to 16017 as downloaded from the website of money control.com as filed before the Ld. CIT(A); photocopy of submissions dated 4.10.2017 & 28.11.2017 as filed before the AO during the assessment proceedings; copy of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT & Ors. vs. Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 0082; copy of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ashwini Gupta (2010) 322 ITR 0396; judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Prakash Chand Nahata vs. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 and copy of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. M/s Ashish International (2011) ITA no. 4299 of 2009; ITAT, Delhi 'SMC' Bench decision dated 25.9.2018 in ITA Nos. 20121/Del/2018 to 2028/Del/2018 in the case of Shoubit Goel (HUF) & Ors. vs. ITO; ITAT, Delhi SMC decision dated 24.10.2018 in the acse of Amit Rastogi (HUF) & Ors. vs. ITO in ITA No. 2128, 2129, 2131 & 2132/Del/2018 (AY 2015-16) and SMC, ITAT, Delhi Decision d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hould be treated as genuine. Further, regarding the statement of Sh. Jai Kishan Poddar the assessee has only stated that in the statement there is no specific link with the claim of exemption in respect of Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 22,78,172/- u/s. 10(38) by him. He has not stated a thing with respect to the statement of Sh. Jai Kishan Poddar in which he has accepted that facilitation of accommodation entries of long term capital gain / long term capital loss through his share banking firm has been done to few beneficiaries with the help of different accommodation entry operators, promoters of the scripts of various penny stocks other brokers etc. Sh. Jai Kishan Poddar also gave details of different bogus scripts/ penny stocks which have been used for providing the accommodation entries of LTCG and LTCL to different beneficiaries using his brokerage company Consortium Capital Pvt. Ltd. and the name of CCL International Limited having scrip name CCL Inter appears in the list whose shares were sold by the assessee and exemption on LTCG amounting to Rs. 22,28,172/- claimed u/s. 10(38) of the Act. After perusing the records, I find that in the instant case the investment in shares....