TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2161
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der of the Tribunal whereby Tribunal has allowed the appeals of the assessee. 4. Counsel for the appellant has framed following substantial question of law:- Appeal No.209/2018 i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,64,04,191/- made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A), made on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain as the companies in which the investment was made were bogus? ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,32,020/- made on account of commission and disallowance of Rs. 12,500/- made on account of legal expenses relating to bogus share transaction? Appeal No.212/2018 i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dition of Rs. 2,08,18,627/-, made by Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A), made on account of bogus Long Term Capital Gain as the companies in which the investment was made were bogus? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,04,093/- made on account of commission and disallowance of Rs. 10,000/- made on account of legal expenses relating to bogus share transaction? 5. However, now the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this court in ITA No.385/2011 (Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Pooja Agarwal) decided on 11.9.2017 which reads as under:- "6. Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of AO stating that the assessee involved in jewelry business has taken entr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as made by him during the said period. It was further found that the company M/s Konark Commercial Ltd. Was never listed in Calcutta Stock Exchange and the assessee was never its shareholder. 10. After considering the entire factual matrix the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had arranged the said accommodation entries from entry providers for converting its undisclosed money into white money and thus the amount of Rs. 98,56,872/- was treated as undisclosed income of the assessee. 11. Counsel for appellant has taken us to the order of AO. 12. However, counsel for the respondent has taken us to the order of CIT(A) and also to the order of Tribunal and contended that in view of the finding reached, which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....count. Prima facie the transaction which are supported by documents appear to be genuine transactions. The AO has discussed modus operandi in some sham transactions which were detected in the search case of B.C. Purohit Group. The AO has also stated in the assessment order itself while discussing the modus operandi that accommodation entries of long term capital gain were purchased as long term capital gain either was exempted from tax or was taxable at a lower rate. As the appellant's case is of short term capital gain, it does not exactly fall under that category of accommodation transactions. Further as per the report of DCIT, Central Circle- 3 Sh. P.K. Agarwal was found to be an entry provider as stated by Sh. Pawan Purohit of ....