TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 822
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....61, as determined by the Id. AO, based solely on suspicion, surmises, and conjectures, and the preponderance of probability, while disregarding the concrete evidence presented. 2. In law, the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) through NFAC erred in not adjudicating any of the following grounds raised by the Appellant without any discussion and thus require adjudication: 1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income tax Act and thereby erred in passing the reassessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income tax Act. 2) The reassessment u/s. 147 is ab initio void and bad in late as the same was initiated at the satisfaction/instance of other authorities without any independent evaluation by the learned AO. 3) The learned AO erred in completing the assessment without furnishing copies of the statement or information relied upon by his at the time of issuance of notice u/s. 148. These were requested for on several occasions during the entire reassessment proceedings. No certified copies of the statements were furnished til....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e disputed addition under section 68 of the Income-tax Act,1961, as there were no unexplained investments nor any investments unrecorded in the books amounting to INR 3,72,18,540/- or any other amount that would justify an addition under this section. 7. In law, the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) erred by disregarding relevant, binding judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant, thus breaching judicial discipline and undermining legal precedents. 8. In law, the facts and the circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Id. AO in taxing the entire proceeds from the sale of shares of Banas Finance Limited without allowing any deduction for purchase costs, despite the provisions of section 115BBE-stating that no deduction for any expenditure or allowance is allowed in computing income referred to in Section 68-only taking effect from April 1, 2013, and thus not applicable to the year under appeal. 3. Ground Nos.1,3 to 7 are related to the addition of Rs. 3,72,18,541/-. Facts in brief are that the assessee an Individual field original return of income disclo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....023 for AY 2012-13 dated 15.01.2025 stating that facts of the case as also the grounds of appeal were identical, the Tribunal deleted the addition on merits and kept the ground of appeal on invocation of section 148 of the Act open, thus allowing appeal of the said assessee. Relevant parts of order are extracted below: "6. The entire assessment revolves around the information received from DDIT (Inv.), Unit-8(2) Mumbai that the assessee transacted in shares of M/s. Banas Finance Ltd. (hereinafter 'BFL'). As per the information, it has been found that scrip of BFL is a penny stock listed on BSE and this company has been used to facilitate introduction of unaccounted income of members of beneficiaries in the form of exempt capital gain. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, vide notice dated 14.12.2019, the assessee was asked to explain the transaction in the shares of BFL. In its reply, the assessee provided contract notes for sale of the shares, brokers ledger account, bank statements wherein the sale consideration received from the broker is reflected, bank statement giving evidence of purchase of shares and payment towards these shares purchase, D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was made. 9. Coming back to the merits of the case, neither the assessee nor her broker is named in the alleged price regime of BFL. On the contrary, the documents mentioned hereinabove go on show that the assessee had done transactions through stock exchange and the consideration received is through banking channel, therefore, on such evidences no adverse inference can be drawn. 10. The Sr.DR placed strong reliance on the decision in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj as reported in 446 ITR 56 (Cal). The decision relied by the Ld. DR in the case of Pr. CIT v. Swati Bajaj [446 ITR 56 (Calcutta)] is misplaced for the primary reason that in the case of Swati Bajaj sale/purchase was not from the Demat Accounts. In most of the cases the purchases were through private placements. Whereas, in the case on hand, the trades were made on the stock exchange. Further, in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra) there were statements recorded from the brokers of the assessee, who had agreed to price manipulation and therefore adverse view was taken. In the case on hand, neither the broker of the assessee was examined nor his name is surfaced in any of the Investigation Report and the Hon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are directed to be deleted. 12. Before parting, it would be apt to refer to the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench in the case of Sonal Snehal Shah, in ITA.1653/Mum/2024 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench was considering the same scrip BFL. The relevant findings read as under: "Even otherwise on the merits of the case, the learned assessing officer was confronted with all the evidences available with the assessee of purchase, dematerialization, sale, transaction by cheque. The names of all the persons from boom the assessee has purchased the shares, the manner of purchasing the shares and how assessee has sold the shares and through which broker assessee has sold the shares are provided to the assessing officer. The learned assessing officer did not make any enquiry and merely on the basis of the report of investigation wing confirmed the addition under section 68 of the act. Therefore, according to us the assessee has discharged his onus under section 68 of the act by proving the nature and source of the amount received. It is for the learned assessing officer to throw back onus on the assessee which the learned assessing officer has failed to do so. Therefore, in th....