TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 757
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f thus Income Tax Act, 1961?" 2. Whether on the forts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) hos erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,18,720/, being 2% of the total amount paid to the entry providers/operators, as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the LT. Act, which is taxable under Income Tax Act, 1961?" 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CITYA) has erred in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 59,36,000/- made u/s. 68 of IT. Act, without considering the fact that Assessing Officer's action was based on the discreet report of the O/o. DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai post Search & Survey action on Shri. Naresh Jain & His syndicates/Groups, who were involved in colluding to execute managed transactions on the stock exchange, thereby generating fraudulent LTCG/STCG and business losses for various beneficiaries and the assessee was found to be one of such beneficiaries, who have involved in such transactions by trading in a Penny stock script of M/s VMS Industries Limited?" "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed in appreciating the fact that, during the statement recorded on oath of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Court and Tribunal have to judge the evidence before it by applying the test of human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances, which had been exercised by the Assessing Officer ?" 9. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CITIA) erred in deleting the total traded value of Rs. 13,49,913/ without considering the fact that Assessing Office relying on the report of investigation wing where the onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the price hike and also to prove that the price of the share of M/s VMS Industries Limited, was not manipulated. Reliance is placed on Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Swatt Bajaj (LA no. GA /2/2022 in ITAT No. 6 of 2022, Dated. 14.06.2022, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that the onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the price hike. Merely demonstrating the financials of the company, volume of trade, transactions through banking channels, inter alia, will not suffice. The assessee has to prove that price of the share was not manipulated?" 10. In the instant case, the appeal is being fled before Hon'ble ITAT. The tax effect involved in the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gued and filed a written submission containing pages 1 to 107 which is kept on record. The Ld.AR argued that the sales transaction was made on 29/03/2012 online. But the amount received on 02/04/2012 after settlement of the said transactions. The Ld.AR further argued that the said scrip was duly transacted through stock exchange and till the movement of the VMS Industries Limited stock price, which is duly annexed at page 32 of APB. In argument, he stated that the assessee before the revenue authorities and before the bench submitted the documents like contract notes executed by stock brokers for purchase and sale of sahre (APB pages 5 to 7), copy of ledger account in the books of the broker (APB 8-10), copy of demat account APB page 11-12. The Ld.AR further stated that on verification of the balance-sheet with annexures for impugned financial year placed at APB 13-18 reveals that the assessee was regularly traded the share and highly involved in the stock market for trading. 6. The Ld.AR respectfully relied on the order of Ld.CIT(A) and the relevant paragraphs on pages 32 to 35 are extracted below:- "5. Decision Findings: I have carefully perused the facts and circumstances....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the trades were made on BSE, a recognised stock exchange, through normal banking channels as per exchange guidelines. They were received and transferred in DEMAT form using Assessee's personal account which is regularly used for investment purposes. He paid STT on the trades at both times and also paid tax @15% on the Rs. 11,74,936/- short-term capital gains in accordance with Sec 111A, IT Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nishant Kantilal Patel & Muktaben Nishant Patel [ITA No. 05 & 06/SRT/2019] dated 07.01.2021 distinguished "reason to believe" from "reason to suspect" and said that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material coming to the notice of the Income Tax Officer and the formation of his belief that there has been escapement of the income of the assessee from assessment in the particular year. Moreover, the materials on record which have been made the basis of the reassessment have not been cross-examined by the Assessee. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [281 CTR 214] held that not allowing the appellant to cross-examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statemen....