AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1138
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nior Standing Counsel for Revenue and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate. J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL): 1. Present writ petition, being W.P. (C) 15828 of 2022, has been filed by Mr. Ajay Gupta, who is the Karta of the Petitioner's Hindu Undivided Family ('HUF'), seeking quashing of the order dated 18th July, 2022 passed under Section 148A(d) ('impugned order') of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and the notice dated 18th July, 2022 passed under Section 148 ('impugned notice') of the Act, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 54(1), Delhi, for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2016-17. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case are that the Petitioner Assessee was served with a Show Cause Notice ('SCN') dated 23rd....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorized signatory of Tradenext Securities Ltd had accepted on oath that the contract notes issued by them were bogus and fabricated. He has further stated that these contract notes were not issued by his company. 4. It was found that shares were purchased on exchange in the name of one Sh. Rakesh Sharma and were subsequently transferred off-market to Tradenext Securities Ltd without any consideration and this was ultimately transferred to the beneficiaries. Sh. Rakesh Sharma has stated that his account was mis-used and he had lodged FIR in regard to the same. Sh. Rakesh Sharma has also stated that he has never opened any Demat Account. 5. Some of the beneficiaries have admitted that they had no knowledge of Share trading....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....one of the 12 dummy demat accounts. 4. It was further found that the Assessee had received 32000 shares of TVS Motor Company Ltd from one of the dummy Demat A/c Mridul Securities P Ltd worth Rs. 9481600/-. xxx xxx xxx From the facts as discussed above, it is apparent that assessee is one of the beneficiary of bogus accommodation transactions of Rs. 94,81,600/-. Therefore, it is inferred that the income of assessee had escaped assessment for the AY 2016-17 for Rs. 94,81,600/-..." 3. The Assessee filed its reply dated 16th July, 2022 to the aforesaid SCN denying any transaction with Tradenext Securities and Kundu Group of Rohtak. However, it admitted holding a trading account with Mridul Securities in the past ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see in its ROI had disclosed that the sale of these shares, offered the income from the said shares as STCG and therefore there is no escapement of income. He states that the matter be remanded back to the AO for passing a fresh order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, after considering the reply dated 16th July, 2022. He states that the AO appears to have initiated the proceedings on the wrong assumption that the Petitioner herein has claimed Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) on the sale of the said shares, which is incorrect. He further states that the action of the AO is contrary to the directions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal v. Union of India (2022 SCC Online 543) as the Assessee was not furnis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....disputed, the present writ cannot be maintained and the Assessee must establish the genuineness of the transactions in the re-assessment proceedings. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 10. The Petitioner contends that it has duly purchased the said 32,000 shares from Mridul Securities but there are no relevant or contemporaneous documents evidencing the said purchase, i.e. bank statement etc., placed on record in this petition. As regards the disclosure, if any, of the purchase of the shares, in its earlier ROI, it was clarified by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the shares were bought in the same financial year, it is only the transaction with respect to sale of shares which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave not brought on record anything to suggest that the reassessment proceedings are being undertaken in an arbitrary manner. 14. With respect to the contention raised on the issue of limitation and the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioners that the notice has been issued beyond limitation has already been rejected by this Court in Touchstone v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25 (III) Delhi and Ors. 2022 SCC Online 3011. 15. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the order dated 2nd September, 2022 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 12683/2022 in the case of Anu Gupta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 54 (1). The said case has no application to the facts of the case in hand, as in the said case, the Petitioners....