TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 347
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 2011-12. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - "1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned Assessing Officer erred in passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 merely on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, presumption and surmises. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Learned Assessing Officer erred in making addition by treating value of Sales Consideration of Rs.93,24,485 as Cash Credit u/s 68 of the Income tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the Appellant has proved genuineness of the transactions by submitting copies of the Brokers Contract Notes, Ledger Account, Demat Statement, Bank Passbook for Purchase & sale of shares and also: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the above additions by overlooking submissions given and thereby passing the order not tenable in law." 6. The sole grievance raised by the assessee in the present appeal pertains to the addition made under sections 68 and 69C of the Act by treating the transaction in shares by the assessee as bogus. 7. The brief facts of the case pertaining to this issue, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual and for the year under consideration, filed his return of income on 31/07/2011, declaring a total income of Rs. 7,47,130. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the information was received from the office....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erein it was found that M/s Paneta Industries Ltd., now known as Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd., is one of the penny stock companies controlled by Mr. Shirish Chandrakant Shah, which has provided bogus entries to the large no. of beneficiaries. The AO also took into consideration the modus operandi adopted by penny stock companies for rigging the price of the shares through circular trading. Accordingly, the AO came to the conclusion that the shares traded value of Rs. 93,24,485 in the scrip of M/s Paneta Industries Ltd., now known as Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd., is an accommodation entry, which is nothing but the return of amount in lieu of cash that the assessee would have paid to hawala operators. Therefore, the AO held that the sum of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he lower authorities. 11. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, on the basis of the information received from the Investigation Unit, Ahmedabad, that the assessee is a beneficiary of bogus entries of long-term capital gain proceedings under section 147 of the Act were initiated in the case of the assessee. On verification of the information, it was noticed by the AO that the assessee has invested in the shares of M/s Paneta Industries Ltd., now known as Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd., and sold the same at the sale value of Rs. 93,24,485. By taking into consideration the information received from the Investigation Wing, the AO alleged that the trading in scrip of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the stock exchange for a total consideration of Rs. 9,97,993. The assessee has furnished a copy of the contract note/bill for the purchase of shares of M/s Paneta Industries Ltd., now known as Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd., which forms part of the paper book on page 38. From the copy of sale bills issued by the assessee's broker, Anand Rathi Securities Ltd, forming part of the paper book from pages 42-56, we find that the assessee sold these shares of M/s Paneta Industries Ltd., now known as Aadhaar Ventures India Ltd., on 28/07/2010, 19/08/2010 and 01/09/2010 for a total consideration of Rs. 93,24,485, after payment of the STT. In order to prove the genuineness of the transaction, the assessee has also placed on record the bank statement h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, the Revenue has failed to prove how the said findings have any relevance to the present case in view of the facts and circumstances as noted in the foregoing paragraphs. There is also no reference to any portion of sworn statements wherein any adverse observation against the assessee has been noted by the Investigation Wing. The price fluctuation of shares of the entities in which the assessee has transacted also does not support the case of the Revenue, as no material has been brought on record to show that the assessee was involved in such price manipulation even after purchasing and selling the shares on the stock exchange through a SEBI registered stock-broker. Therefore, in the present case, it is sufficiently evident that the AO, ....