TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (1) TMI 220
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce the issues involved are common and the appeals were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. At the first instance we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 1417/Chd/2019. 4. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 44 days. The assessee moved an application to condone the delay stating therein as under: "Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal Dear Sir, The appellant begs to submit as under: 1. That I had filed an appeal before CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana for the assessment year 2015-16 which was decided by the CIT(A) vide order dated 01/06/2019. 2. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his resulted in delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the delay is unintentional. 5. That it is humbly prayed that in the interest of justice the delay in filing the appeal may please be condoned. " 5. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the contents of the aforesaid application and the Affidavit of the assessee. It was also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was not malafide and it was beyond the control of the assessee, since the delay occurred due to the mistake of the gate keeper to whom the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was delivered, however he could not hand over the same to the assessee timely. He requested to condone the delay. 6. In his ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring an income of Rs. 61,52,150/- on 30/09/2015. Later on the case was selected for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings the A.O. noticed that the assessee had traded in Penny stock of M/s Jackson Investments Limited and sold 20,000 shares for a total sale consideration of Rs. 61,76,000/- and earned profit of Rs. 59,15,108/- which was claimed to be exempt being Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG). The A.O. also observed that the investigation revealed that the company i.e. M/s Jackson Investments Limited had done very marginal operation during the period. It was further observed that there was a common pattern in trading of all the 84 scripts including the script of M/s Jackson Investments Limited which were investigated by the Pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to with the sole intent to evade taxes. He also observed that the assessee purchased and sold the shares of M/s Jackson Investments Limited in a very thoughtful and planned manner and that the assessee avoided revealing any details of how such strategic decisions were made by quoting general friends and business associates, whose whereabouts were not known to the assessee. 9.1 The submissions of the assessee before the A.O. was that he had done this transaction through stock exchanges and banking channels and that he had paid Security Transaction Tax / SEBI Tax / Stamp Duty which was applicable for trading of shares. 9.2 The A.O. however did not find merits in the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of Rs. 59,15,108/- un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition by observing in para 5.17 of the impugned order as under: " 5.17. In view of the detailed discussion above, it is held that the appellant has failed to discharge its onus of proving the genuineness and creditworthiness of the above transaction and it is beyond any doubt that transaction was just a cover-up to bring its own unaccounted money into its books of account. It is beyond doubt that the assessee has taken entries from M/s Jackson Investment Ltd. which has been found to be involved in the activities of providing bogus long term capital gain to beneficiaries as statedin above paragraph the financial statement of M/s Jackson Investment Ltd. also clearly shows that the assessee has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ial available on the record. In the present case it is noticed that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the case of the assessee discussed the facts of another case and not that of the assessee, she reproduced the grounds of appeal in para 2 of the impugned order which were different from the grounds raised by the assessee in Form No. 35 which is placed on record. In the said grounds mentioned in Form No. 35 the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 59,15,108/- made by the A.O. while the Ld. CIT(A) dealt with the addition of Rs. 1,62,80,162/- which was not related to the assessee. In the present case the main grievance of the assessee is that the evidences used by the Ld. CIT(A) while sustaining the addition were not confronted to the assess....