TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds. The assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 29.10.2017 declaring income of Rs. 3,62,840/-. Initially, the Return of Income was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and was accepted. Subsequently, the case of assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 26.03.2014, which was served on 29.03.2014. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee replied on 09.04.2014 stating therein that original return filed on 29.10.2007 may be treated as Return of Income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) recorded that reasons recorded were provided to the assessee on 29.05.2014. The assessee raised objection against the reopening vide letter dated 30.06.2014 again reopened. Objection of assessee was disposed of by speaking order on 23.09.2014. 3. The AO in the reasons recorded that information was received from Chief Commissioner of Income tax (CCIT)(Cenral-1, Mumbai) that assessee is one of the beneficiaries who have taken accommodation entry from Mahasagar Group for the A.Y. 2007-08. The person who was managing various companies managed and c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under section 144 r.w.w 147 of the Act. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee challenged the validity of reopening as well as addition of Rs. 24,80,975/-. The ld.CIT(A) upheld the validity of reopening. However, on merit, the ld.CIT(A) held that the ld.AO erroneously added Rs. 24,80,975/- as the assessee furnished the evidence of actual receipt of Rs. 12,37,886/-, thus, the ld.CIT(A) granted partial relief to the assessee and upheld the addition to the extent of Rs. 12,37,886/-. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee and ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) for the Revenue and have gone through the orders of the authorities below. Ground No.1 relates to validity of reopening under section 148 of the Act. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that AO reopened the case of assessee under section 147, solely on the basis of statement of third person namely Mukesh Chokshi. The copy of statement of Mukesh Choksi was not provided to the assessee. Before making reopening, the AO has not made any independent enquiry; notice under section 148 is issue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14 was duly served upon the assessee on 29.03.2014. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed her reply stating therein that return filed originally on 29310.2007 may be treated as return in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. The assessee demanded reasons recorded. The reasons recorded were provided to the assessee on 29.05.2014. The assessee raised certain objections on 30.06.2014. The objection of assessee were disposed of in a speaking order on 23.09.2014. All these facts are not disputed by the ld.AR of the Assessee. We further find that after disposing of objection, the ld.AO proceeded to complete the reassessment. The AO noted that despite repeated notices, the assessee neither furnished complete details not attended the proceedings before the AO. The ld.AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the reasons recorded are not valid as there was not sufficient material and specific information against the assessee and strongly relied upon the decision of Tribunal in Pratik Suryakant Shah (supra). In the said case, the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal has not given finding on validity of reopening rather the assessee was granted relief on m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re is nothing out of books. The assessee claim capital gain of Rs. 11,93,337/- against the sale value of shares at Rs. 12,37,886/- after deducting the cost of acquisition ofRs. 44,549/-. Though the ld. CIT(A) accepted the transaction of Rs. 12,37,886/-, however, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition of remaining amount. The ld.AR submits that the transactions of assessee are genuine and the Long Term Capital Gain cannot be treated as in genuine. The investment of the assessee was not doubted by the revenue. To support his submission, the ld.AR relied upon the decision of Hon Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Ramniwas Ramjivan Kasat [2017] 82 taxmann.con 458 (Gujarat), decision of Tribunal in ACIT Vs. El Dorado Biotech (P) Ltd.,[2021] 123 taxmann.com 265 (Ahmedabad - Tri), Pratik Suryakant Shah Vs ITO [2017] 77 taxmann.com 260 (Ahd- Tri), Mumbai Tribunal in Sunil Prakash Vs ACIT (ITA No.6494/Mum/2014 dated 08.03.2017) and Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2016) 15 SCC 785. 9. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue further submits that the assessee purchased the share from the entity, name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... later on sold it from said Demat account, such transaction could not be taken as bogus merely on basis of statement of stock broker so as to deny LTCG exemption. It was also held that Mukesh Choksi may be providing accommodation entry to various persons but the facts of this case suggest that transaction in that case were genuine and no adverse interference were called for. Further Mumbai Tribunal in Sunil Parekh Vs ITO (supra) on similar set of fact that when the transaction were made through the stock exchange and the shares were transferred through Demat account there was no justification to tax the entire sale proceed to treat the transaction at the hand of the assessee. It was also observed by the coordinate bench that in the statement of Mukesh Chokshi had not stated that entire transaction undertaken by his group are not genuine. Now adverting to the facts of this case, we find that the facts of the case in hand are similar as of facts in Pratik Suryakant Shah Vs ITO (supra). Further, we find that the AO made additions solely on the basis of information received from CCIT (investigation), and even without making any further investigation about the transaction shown by the a....