TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....A) has only gone by surmises,' conjuncture and guess work in drawing inference and in recording his conclusion. It is pertinent to mention here that the entire addition has been made by the A.O. only on the basis of presumptions and presuppositions, instead considering the following documents/informations and explanations provided by the appellant during the course of the assessment: a. Copy of contract notes cum bill of transactions for the verification of sale. b. Copy of bank statement of the assessee evidencing the purchase and sale of shares through regular banking channels. c. Copy of dmat account and share certificates d. Statement of appellant/assessee on oath in response to summon u/s 131. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s count, the present case before your honor is squarely covered by the verdict of the honorable ITAT Kolkatta in the case of Surya Prakash Toshniwal (HUF) vs ITO Kolkatta, ITA No. 1213/Kolkatta/2016. Order pronounced on 11-01-2017. 3. The Ld. CIT(A} has erred in law and on fact by confirming the addition of Rs.63,27,566/- to the income, without identifying any defect over the documentary evidences furnished during the course of assessment and even without conducting any enquiry, just by quoting some other cases to which the assessee has nothing to do with. Further, the findings of SEBI cannot be the sole reason for disapproving the claim of the assessee without bringing any adverse material on record to reject the details, document....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose statements are sought to be relied upon. Thus, this is a case of gross violation of principle of natural justice. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact by confirming the addition of Rs.3,16,378/- to the income, applying a hypothetical rate of 5% on Rs. 63,27,566/-, being charges or commission paid for accommodation entries, without any basis or material placed on record, just on suspicious surmises and conjectures. 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on fact by confirming the invocation of section 115BBE of the act and taxing the whole addition made for Rs.66,43,944/- @ maximum slab against the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee has shown Long Term Capital ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... undisclosed income in the garb of LTCG has to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s 68 by holding as under :- "......The authorities have recorded a clear finding of fact that the assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. While so observing, the authorities held that the assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in a unknown company worth Rs.5/- had jumped to Rs.485/- in no time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no financial basis as how a share worth Rs.5/- of a little known company would jump from Rs.5/- to Rs.485/-. The findings rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate bogus profit in the garb of tax exempt LTCG by well organized network of entry providers with the sole motive to sell such entries to enable the beneficiary to account for the undisclosed income for a consideration of commission. 5.27 In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that share transactions leading to LTCG by the appellant are sham transaction entered into for the purpose of evading tax. Accordingly, it is held that the AO has rightly added the said amount of Rs.63,27,566/- as unexplained income of the appellant. Since arranging such accommodation entry necessarily entails payment of commission to entry providers, the AO's action in quantifying and adding such unexplained expenditure at Rs.3,16,378/-....