AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 182
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eopening the assessment. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground of appeal that the AO erred in making huge addition of Rs. 6,12,367/- stating bogus LTCG claimed u/s 10(38) in the ROI held to be income from undisclosed sources. '' 2. 1 Apropos Ground No. 1 and 2 of the assessee, the facts as emerges from the order of the ld. CIT(A) are as under:- ''6. I have carefully considered the grounds of appeal, statement of fact, the contents of assessment order and written submissions filed by the appellant. There is no dispute on the fact that M/s. Blueprint Securities Ltd. was a penny stock company. The assessee had purchased 50 shares of Ranisati Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 500/- in cash from Pushpanjali Commotra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the assessment made by the AO and also not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,12,367/- treating bogus LTCG claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee from undisclosed sources. To this effect, the ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed written submission countering the action of the ld. CIT(A) on the issue in question. ''Ground No. 1:On perusal of the reasons recorded u/s 148(2) it appears that before re-opening of the assessment the Ld. AO had not applied his mind and there was no information before him for any escaped assessment as in these reasons recorded the Ld. AO has stated that the assessee was beneficiary of receiving bogus short term/long term capital gain entries from the bogus/fake entry providers ie. , M/s B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wal (DB ITA No. 385 dated 11-09-2017, Raj. High Court) 6. Meghraj Shekhawat vs DCIT (ITA No. 443 & 444/JP/2017 dated 07- 03-2018, ITAT, Jaipur Bench) 7. DCIT vs Saurabh Mittal (ITA No. 16/JP/2018 dated 29-08-2018, ITAT, Jaipur Bench) But it is very unfortunate that the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the detailed written submissions and judicial pronouncements relied in the appeal, has very arbitrarily decided that "it was as sham transaction whci cannot stand and the test of human probability and therefore, addition so made by the AO is hereb confirmed, but the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the ground of appeal of the assessee that "the ld. AO erred in re-opening the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) relied upon the various judgements of bombay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd no adverse inference was drawn by him. The assessee submitted all the documentary evidences and information in evidence of his claim which are probable and expected from a human being and proved his onus to prove. But the Ld. AO arbitrarily disallowed the claim of the assessee and made a very huge addition of Rs. 6,12,367/- stating bogus LTCG claimed u/s 10(38) in the return of income held to be income from other sources without any congent evidence, inquiry, investigation or information, which is unjustified, bad in law and needs deletion. Reliance has been placed on the following judgements: 1. (JP-Trib) 2021 ITL 2057 Nilesh Agrawal HUF v. ITO ITA No. 222- 223/JP/2020 Dt. Of Order 09. 02. 2021 2. (Rajasthan High Court) DBIT No. 209....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had purchased 50 shares of M/s. Ranisati Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 500/- in cash from Pushpanjali Commotrade Pvt. Ltd. During the hearing the bench has asked the ld. AR of the assessee to submit the copy of the bills for purchase of shares under dispute and copy of the demate account specifying the proof when the questions shares in fact purchased and received in the demate account of the assessee. In response the ld. AR of the assessee vide letter dated 10. 02. 2003 only submitted the purchase bill, ongoing through the copy of the bill it is not cleared that the shares of that company named Pushpanjali Commod Trade Private Limited in fact purchased in physical form or ....