2025 (6) TMI 1414

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Tribunal "SMC" Bench, Kolkata (the Tribunal) in ITA/356/Kol/2024 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration : "a. Whether the learned ITAT has committed substantial error in law in holding that the reopening is bade in law and hence additions are not sustainable, when the assessing officer has sufficient cause or justification so assume the jurisdiction for re-opening ? b. Whether the learned ITAT has committed substantial error in law to delete the additions made under section 68 of the said Act to the tune of Rs. 29,90,203/-, despite the fact that the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors as well as genuineness of the transactions could not be es....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....3.2016. The reasons mentioned for reopening as quoted hereunder: "The Directorate of Income Tax (Inv), Koi had conducted extensive investigation in the matter of tax evasion by some individuals/entities by showing income from LTCG, which is actually bogus, perpetrated through accommodation entry operators. In the entire scenario, it is found that the promoters of the penny stocks, the share brokers and the entry operators are involved in this business of bogus LTCG by rigging the prices. The assessee is found to have enjoyed bogus LTCG of Rs. 547749/- in the FY 2010-11 by transacting in the penny stock, 'JMD Telefilm'. In just reverse procedure, the assessee is learnt to have booked STCL of Rs. 3531930/- from the same scrip in the sam....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 139 for any assessment year to the Income Tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment order. This aspect of the matter is conspicuously absent in the reasons which were recorded for reopening the assessment. The second error committed by the assessing officer is disposing the objection raised by the assessee for the reopening of the assessment and by submitting a reply to the show cause notice dated 28.3.2016. 7. It is being a mandate under law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. vs. ITO & Ors. ;(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) goes to the route of the matter rendering the reop....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al position in paragraph 10 of the impugned order. After going through the computation of income as well as the objections raised by the assessee against initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and observed that the assessee has not earned any long term capital gain during the year. 10. Further, there is no exemption claimed under section 10 (38) of the Act at Rs. 5,47,749/- in the income tax return. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal perused the profit and loss account, net income from sale of investment and found the same only to be Rs. 12,500/-. Further, with regard to short term capital loss which was Rs. 35,31,930/-, it was brought to the notice of the tribunal that during the year the assessee purchased 30,000 shares of....