TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (10) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s.20,35,000/- U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is otherwise sale proceeds of the assessee and suitably accounted for and explained. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) grossly erred in confirming the action of Ld. Assessing Officer treating the sales of assessee as undisclosed and making addition U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without considering the evidences on record. 3. The assessee crave right to alter/modify/amend/add/ delete any or all grounds of appeal. 4. These action of Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi, and Ld. Assessing officer being Arbitrary, unjust, Illegal and invalid in law ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the assessee attended the proceedings and discussed the case with the Assessing Officer ["AO"]. It is recorded by the AO that the assessee company being a Non-Banking Financial Company Corporation and has credited interest of Rs.60,39,936/-. The assessee has also purchased and sold 46,100 shares of M/s Urvashi Finvest Pvt.Ltd. during the year. It was observed by the AO that the shares were purchased in August, 2008 from Shri Manoj Aggarwal @ 100/- per shares. However, shares were sold @ Rs.55.85/- per share on 15.03.2009 to M/s. Sanchauli Mercantile and Investment Pvt. Ltd. It was recorded by the AO that no payment was made for purchasing the shares as the amount was adjusteded out of a sum receivable from him. It was further obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been seized during the course of search/seizure operation conducted in the case of Shri S.K. Jain group which shows that the reasons given by the appellant for submitting additional evidence were not correct. Even otherwise if these documents are taken on record they do not conclusively prove that transaction was genuine due to other related facts and overwhelming evidence against the appellant. ii) The AO had issued summons u/s 131 of the Act to Shri Manoj Aggarwal and as per the summons dated 22.07.2016. Shri Manoj Aggarwal was required to appear along with following details:- (i) Personal Deposition (ii) Proof of acquisition of shares of M/s Urvashi (iii) Finvest Pvt Ltd and its source and to whom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chauli Mercantile and Investment Pvt. Ltd. which were sold vide bill dated 15.03.2009 for Rs.25,75,000/-, as per the ledger account the amount was received first on 31.03.2010 via Kotak Mahindra Bank the said cheque was returned and the entry in the ledger was reversed on 01.10.2010. The payment against the same was subsequently received/obtained on 20.11.2010 of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.15,75,000/- were received on 31.03.2011. v) Apart from the above there has been no rationale submitted as to why at the first instance the shares of M/s Urvashi Finvest Pvt. Ltd. was purchased by Shri Manoj Aggarwal. Later on by Shri M/s Sanchauli Mercantile and Investment Pvt. Ltd. 7. A copy of the remand report was given to the appellant. A....