TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1083
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t are wrong, invalid, unjustified, bad-in-law and beyond the law. Appellant prays for quashing the same. 2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld CIT(A), (NFAC) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, whereas assessment order passed by learned AO u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act is wrong, invalid, unjustified, bad-in-law and beyond the law. Appellant prays for quashing the same. 3) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,33,225 u/s 68 of the Act by wrongly assuming the bona fide and genuine gross sales amount of 3500 Equity Shares of the Company 'Twenty First Century (India) Ltd.' sold on the platform of stock exchange after holding the same for seven years. As unexplained cash credit. Addition so made is grossly wrong and unjustified on facts as well as in law. Appellant prays for deleting the same. 4) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld CIT(A) has erred in directing the ld. AO to verify correct salary income as per Form No.26AS, whereas ld. AO has clearly ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted at Source (TDS) of Rs. 34,923/- was deducted. However, assessee has shown salary income of Rs. 4,55,000/- only and claimed deduction of Rs. 17,467/-. Thus, the difference amount of salary was proposed for addition. The Assessing Officer recorded that despite service of notice, the assessee has not furnished any reply / explanation. In absence of explanation and supporting evidence by assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the LTCG of Rs. 11,33,25/- as unexplained cash credit. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 4,55,000/- on account of mis-match in Form No.26-AS data and treated the same as undisclosed income while passing the assessment order passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 10.12.2018. 4. Aggrieved by the addition made in the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed detailed statement of fact as well as written submission. In the statement of fact, assessee stated that assessee purchased share of 'Twenty First Century (India) Ltd.' in financial year 2004-05 and sold during the year under consideration i.e., assessment year 2012-13. The assessee was sold after holding the scrips for seven years.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed, the shares price was rigged and beneficiaries sold their shares. The assessee has not received or acquired through preferential allotment or in off market transaction or by way of amalgamation or merger of companies or shares of TFC. The holding period of assessee is very long. On the addition of Rs. 4,55,000/- on account of mismatch in Form-26AS, the assessee stated that assessee received total salary of Rs. 4,25,000/- on which TDS was deducted at Rs. 17,467/-. The assessee stated that it appears that Form-26AS, the Assessing Officer considered the amount as twice. Thus, the addition is factually incorrect. 5. The ld CIT(A) on considering the submission of the assessee held that the office of DIT (investigation) Kolkata carried out search and seizure action in the officer premises of various entity, who were managing the penny stock companies actively involved in bogus transaction of long-term capital gain or short-term capital gain. Survey was also carried out at the premises of accommodation entry providers. Beneficiary of such entries were also identified by investigation wing about the shares of Twenty First Century (India) Limited. The prices were rigged to provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hares were held by assessee in demat account for several years. The same was sold on a platform of recognized stock exchange through SEBI registered broker and delivery of shares were given from demat account. The assessee received gross amount of Rs. 11,33,225/- and after deducting brokerage and other charges received Rs. 11,31,012/-only, through banking channel as per procedure of stock exchange. The assessee sold the shares on prevailing market rate after holding for seven years, which cannot be treated as shame transactions or transaction of penny stock. The ld AR of the assessee further submits that that as per material available with Assessing Officer and as communicated to the assessee beneficiaries of penny stock acquired shares of TFC through preferential allotment i.e. off market transaction or by way of amalgamation or merger and once one year has passed, the shares price was rigged and beneficiaries sold their shares. The assessee has not received or acquired through preferential allotment or in off market transaction or by way of amalgamation or merger of companies or shares of TFC. The holding period of assessee is very long. There is no allegation or evidence on reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....utta High Court in PCIT Vs Swati Bajaj (supra). 8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. I have also deliberated on the various case laws relied by the parties. From the evidence available on record, there is no dispute that the assessee purchased 3500 shares of Twenty First Century (India) Limited on 17.11.2004 i.e. in AY 2004-05 and sold during the assessment year under consideration, thus, the holding period of scrips are of seven years. The shares were sold though registered broker of Bombay Stock exchange. The payment of purchase as well as sale was made through banking channel. The assessee paid STT on the sale of such shares. There is no allegation of Assessing Officer that the broker of assessee was involved in price rigging of these shares. I find that before ld CIT(A) the assessee has furnished complete details of his transaction to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the period of holding. No independent investigation of facts is carried out by LD CIT(A), nor any adverse comment were given on such evidences. The ld CIT(A) has co-terminus power of Assessing Officer. The Assessing Of....