2022 (11) TMI 414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ined income without properly appreciating the true facts of the case and without considering the submissions made by the Appellant andsup0porting documents submitted by the Appellant." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee has not filed his return of income for assessment year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer received information from Joint Director of Income-tax (Inv.), Unit-7 Mumbai that during the year under consideration, the assessee has sold penny stock scrip of Scan Steels Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.2,57,370/-. The Assessing Officer recorded the reasons that income of assessee escape assessment to the extent of transaction amount of Rs.2,57,370/-. The Assessing Officer in reasons recorded noted that income of Rs.2,57,370/- represents as undisclosed and unexplained income which has escaped assessment within the meaning of sec 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer after recording the reasons, issued notice under section 148 of the Act to assessee on 30.03.2019. In response to notice under section 148, the assessee filed his return of income on 29.04.2019 showing total income of Rs.67,640/-. The reasons recorded by Assessing Officer was provided to the assessee. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9 fixing the date of compliance on 08.11.2019. The assessee was unable to make such compliance owing to short span of time and sought adjournment on 08.11.2019. Thereafter the assessee filed detailed on 21.11.2019 however, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 20.11.2019 prior to such assessee's details on 21.11.2019 without giving any opportunity to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not intimated whether the adjournment application of assessee was considered or rejected by him. The Assessing Officer wrongly mentioned the considering of penny stock of Rs.2,57,370/- which is not correct, the correct figure is Rs.2,57,923/- the Assessing Officer knowingly ignored the fact that assessee has purchased the shares for consideration of Rs.2,55,368/- and derived profit of Rs.1,655/- only. The Ld.NFAC/CIT(A) after considering the contents of the assessment order and the submission of assessee upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer by taking view that assessee purchased 1350 shares of Scan Steel Ltd. (subsequently known as "Clarus" BSE scrip Code 511672) with a consideration of Rs.2,55,368/-. On the validity of re-opening, the assessee stated that Assessing Off....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... due time. Thus, I find sufficient cause for condonation of delay, considering the fact that plea of assessee was circumstances situation. The delay in filing appeal is condoned and admitted for decision on merits. Now I will advert to discuss the merits to the appeal. 11. I have heard the submissions of parties on the merits of case. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee's case was re-opened on the basis of third party information. The Assessing Officer before making any reasons have not investigated the fact and reopened without verification of fact that assessee has obtained accommodation entry or bogus capital gains. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee transacted in share script of M/s Scan Steels Ltd. on intra-date transaction based. The assessee has not made any investment, the transaction was not delivery base. The assessee was given only profit on interdate and assessee earned profit of Rs.1,655/-. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee sought adjournment on 08.11.2019. Neither the assessee was informed about such adjournment nor about the rejection of his adjournment application. The assessee furnished complete details of inter-date tr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e sale consideration of share was received by assessee that only a profit of Rs.1,655/- was received, the Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue submits that the matter may be restored back to the file of NFAC/CIT(A) for proper verification of fact and pass the order in accordance with law. 15. I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the order of lower authorities carefully. I find that the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.2,57,370/- by taking view that assessee has not furnished any details despite service of notice and that assessee made penny stock transaction for a consideration of penny stock share script of M/s Scan Steels Ltd. of Rs.2,57,370/-. I find that before NFAC/CIT(A) the assessee filed written submission wherein clearly stated that he has made intra -date transactions of four days i.e., on 12th July, 13th July, 19th July and 21st July of 2011. The assessee furnished details of share and the cost of acquisition and gain or loss earned during those days. The assessee in his details submitted that he has earned only Rs.1,655/- as gains on intra -day transaction. The assessee also furnished his account with share broker Jainam Share Consult....