TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....G] as bogus. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 28.08.2015 for the year under consideration showing income of Rs. 4.99 lakhs. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment through CASS and, accordingly, statutory notices were issued and served upon the assessee. 4. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the A.O observed that the assessee has shown LTCG on sale of shares. Referring to the investigation made by the Directorate of Investigation, Kolkata, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by the entry provider in the form of LTCG involving penny stock companies. Drawing support from the Inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the transaction statement of the stock broker, contract note for sale of shares, transaction and holding statement, statement of account from the broker certifying the sale of shares. In my considered opinion, the entire addition has been made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of presumptions and surmises without pointing out any specific defect in the documentary evidences filed by the assessee. Moreover, the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of one Shri Sanjay Vohra, who, in his statement, has stated that he has indulged in bogus LTCG transactions in Kolkata Stock Exchange and M.P. Stock Exchange. The Assessing Officer completely ignored the fact that the assessee has done transactions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfuln....