2019 (11) TMI 393

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....turn of income for A.Y. 2003-04 on 30-09-2003 declaring total income at Rs. 2,15,568/-. The case was initially selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 13-02-2006 accepting the total income declared by the assessee. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has noted that the Investigation wing, Mumbai during the course of search action u/s. 132 of the Act on the several stock brokers in the month of January, 2006 noted that they were engaged in arranging bogus purchases and sale of shares and resultant gains were claimed as exempt Long Term Capital Gain or liable for lower tax rate of 10%. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had shown Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 6,63,649/- which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad in law and may please be cancelled. 3. CIT(A) has erred in not. declaring the Proceeding initiated u/s 147/148 itself are without jurisdiction and bad in law (as transaction of Purchase and Sale of Shares (Penny Stock) were verified by Assessing Officer during Original Assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) for Assessment Year 2003-04 and Purchase of Shares appearing in Balance sheet for AY 2002-03 of which assessment was under search proceedings.) 4. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,63,649/- as Income from Other Sources as against Long Term Capital Gain as offered by Assessee. Appellant prays to confirm the same as Long Term Capital Gain. 5. Appellant prays for just and equitable relief. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing of the assessment is mandatory condition. He thereafter relying on the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd. [2012] 340 ITR 66 (Bom) and in the case of CIT Vs. Trend Electronics [2015] 379 ITR 456 (Bom) and the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. IDBI Ltd. in Income Tax Appeal No. 494 of 2014, dated 19-09-2016 submitted that the High Court in the aforesaid decisions have held that failure to furnish the recorded reasons for issue of reopening would make the reassessment order passed to be bad in law. He therefore, submitted that the order of Assessing Officer be set aside. 4. The ld. DR on the other hand supported the order of Assessing Officer and CIT(A)....