TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ear 2015-16. 2. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : "i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Learned Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.9,16,444/- made by the Assessing Officer by ignoring the larger scam of tax evasion by way of bogus capital gain generated in penny stock? ii) Whether the Assessee is entitled to tax exemption under Section 10 (38) of the said Act when the records and materials indicate that the alleged income shown as Long Term Capital Gain is result of manipulation and malpractice of an organized tax evasion? iii) Whether the Learned Tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficer, Investigation Wing of the Department as well as SEBI on astronomical rise in prices of companies which have no net worth, underlying business activities and financial foundation and thereby failed to apply the test of human probability to ascertain the true nature of transactions resulting in bogus Long Term Capital Gain? 3. We have heard Mr. Vipul Kundalia, learned senior standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Amit Sharma for the appellant/revenue. 4. A notice has been served on the respondent/assessee as early as October, 2024 and affidavit-of-service has been filed, but none appears for the respondent/assessee. 5. The short question which falls for consideration in the instant case is whether the learned Tribunal was right in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... having failed to discharge the burden upon him, assessment was completed. The assessee carried the matter on appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). 8. The NFAC took note of the grounds raised by the assessee before it, the written submission along with paper book and proceeded to take a decision on each and every ground raised by the assessee in the appeal memo. After elaborate reasoning and after referring to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeal was dismissed. 9. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Appellate Authority, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, in our view, failed to take into consideration any of the reasoning given either by the Assessing Off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... evidence or conclusion and that the function of the assessing officer is to administer the statute with solicitude for the public exchequer with an inbuilt idea of fairness to taxpayers. Further, a reference was made to the decision in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in (1991) 4 SCC 166 and it was held that at the initiation stage, what is required is "reason to believe", but not the established fact of escapement of income. Further, at the stage of issue of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief; whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage since the formation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value of the shares of the assessee is almost 4.5 times in a span of one year and 2 months resulting in huge capital gains to the assessee. Thereafter, the assessing officer has verified the contract note and the share certificate submitted by the assessee and other details of the transactions done by the assessee as well as the details furnished in the return of income and then has stated that the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction of shares of M/s. Tuni Textiles Mills Ltd. and subsequent earning of exempt LTCG by the assessee through the transaction in the said shares clearly indicate that the claim of the assessee regarding earning of significant LTCG exempt under Section 10(38) requires deeper investigation and analysis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usive transactions by group of entry operators and shell entities. Thereafter the assessing officer has taken note of the various decisions, namely, CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More reported in (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC), Sumati Dayal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), applied the test of human probabilities as propounded in the said decisions and then completed the assessment and has pointed out that before finalizing the assessment a final show cause notice was issued on 18.09.2021 for which the assessee submitted reply on 22.09.2021 and the said reply was also considered and the assessing officer has pointed out that the assessee has not submitted any new evidence in response to the show cause notice. Therefore, the ....