2024 (3) TMI 1444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nal') in ITA No.197/SRT/2023 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : 2.1 The assessee filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 on 20.3.2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,20,670/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter, statutory notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) along with questionnaire of the Act were issued on 18.9.2015 and 25.6.2016. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 28.12.2016 determining total income at Rs.19,60,360/- by making addition of Rs.15,09,500/- on account of undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Act and Rs.30,190/- on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69 of the Act. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies. Learned advocate submitted that during the extensive search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act over the syndicate members, the brokers and entry providers, it was found that entire business of providing entries in STCL. Learned advocate further submitted that the subject matter of transaction is in penny stock and the system in trading penny stock is much organized for claiming bogus Long Term Capital Gain and Short Term Capital Loss. (2) According to learned advocate for the appellant - revenue, in the entire transaction of penny stock, mostly there is a paper arrangement and there is no genuine transaction and, therefore, rule of suspicion transaction shall apply in the assessee's case. (3) Learned advo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... said to have enter into in genuine transactions. So far as assessee is concerned, she 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) h....