TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 28.12.2016. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- "(1) The learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred on facts and circumstances of case in adding the total sale proceeds from the sale of scrip MISHKA FINANCE AND TRADING LIMITED of Rs. 1509500/- as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 together with a sum of Rs. 30,190/-of commission paid on the LTCG as unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Act. A demand is determined u/s 156 dated 28/12/2016 of Rs. 69490/-. The addition by A.O is, incorrect and unjustified. (2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lkata, the Assessing Officer was of the view that assessee is beneficiary of capital gains on penny stocks. The Assessing Officer on the basis of report of Investigation Wing, Kolkata issued show cause notice as to why sale and purchase of shares of Mishka Finance & Trading Ltd. should not be treated as unexplained credit. The Assessing Officer also issued show cause notice as to why the commission should not be considered @ 2% of bogus LTCG. In this regard, assessee filed her reply dated 19.12.2016. The reply of assessee is recorded in para-13 of assessment order. The assessee submitted that she purchased 1000 shares @ Rs. 35/- per share of Pyramid Trading & Finance Ltd. on 03.12.2012 having face value of Rs. 10/- per share which were sent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....actions. 3. The reply of assessee was not accepted by Assessing Officer and he held that assessee silent as to why she has come to know about the company and having financial position. The assessee has no experience in share market but Assessing Officer was having information that 84 companies are engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries of LTCG. The assessee has earned total of Rs. 15,09,500/-, which is not genuine and Assessing Officer added the entire amount under section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition on account of commission payment @ 2% of LTCG thereby made further addition of Rs. 30,190/- while passing the assessment order on 28.12.2016. 4. Aggrieved by the action of Assessing Officer the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch sale was claimed as exempt income under section 10(38) of the Act. The sale of shares was made through BSE and all necessary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of such transactions were furnished before lower authorities. The Ld. AR for the assessee submits that assessee furnished letter from RTA in the name of assessee and evidence of issuing of bonus share, copy of demat account, intimation of RTA for splitting shares, all contract notes, holding no descriptions in all evidence were identified by Assessing Officer and no adverse comment on such evidence were made by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer mainly acted on the report of Investigation Wing, Kolkata, copy of such Investigation Wing was never supplied to assessee. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... AR for the assessee relied upon the following decisions: CIT vs. Himani M. Vakil [2014] 41 taxmann.com 425 (Guj)/[2014] 221 Taxman 140 (Guj)(Mag.)[25-09-2012] PCIT vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar [2021] 130 taxmann.com 177 (SC)/[2021] 282 Taxman 301 (SC)[02-08-2021], PCIT vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar (2021) 130 taxmann.com 176 (Guj), Parasben Kasturchand Kochar Mehtea Lodha & Co. vs. ITO in ITA No. 549/AHD/2018 dated 20.02.2020, PCIT Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) ITA No. 454 of 2018 (Bombay High Court) and ITO Vs Indravadan Jain (HUF) in ITA No. 4861 & 5168/Mum/2018 dated 27.95.2016 7. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities and submits th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has no control over the activities of the brokers or price manipulation. I further find that assessee has furnished complete evidence including contract note of shares, demat details, detail of bonus shares. However, no adverse evidence was brought against such evidence. Nor the assessing officer made adverse comment on such evidences. I further find that SEBI made a through inquiry against Mishka Finance & Trading Ltd. and vide order dated 05.10.2017 that no adverse materials were found in the investigation report with respect to prima facie violation. 10. I find that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Himani M. Vakil (supra) held that where assessee duly proved genuineness of sale transaction by bringing on record co....