2025 (8) TMI 356

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... had filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,97,680/-. The case was reopened on the basis of information about accommodation entries obtained by the assessee from an entry operator Shri Jignesh Shah and group. Thereafter, the assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 30.03.2022 at total income of Rs. 3,97,680/- as per return of income. The case record was called for and examined by the Ld. PCIT who noted that the AO did not make addition of Rs. 21,26,201/- on account of accommodation entries, for which the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act. He, therefore, held that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue and, therefore, passed the im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....opened u/s.147 of the Act to examine the sale of shares of penny stock companies to the extent of Rs. 21,26,201/-. She explained that the issue on which the case was reopened was duly examined by the AO in the course of re-assessment proceeding and considering the explanation of the assessee no addition was made. Thus, the ground on which the case was reopened was ultimately dropped by the AO. The Ld. AR submitted that when the issue, on which the case was reopened by the AO, was duly examined in the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. PCIT was not correct in holding that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 5. Per contra, Shri A. P. Singh, the Ld. CIT. DR. supported the order of the Ld. P....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e part of closing stock. The assessee had, therefore, explained that the question of obtaining any bogus capital gain on sale of shares of Shivansh Finsey Ltd. also did not arise as the assessee had incurred short term capital loss of Rs. 1,25,396/- in these transactions. Considering the explanation of the assessee, no addition was made by the AO and the return of income was accepted. When the matter on which the case was reopened was duly examined by the AO in the course of assessment proceeding, the stand of the Ld. PCIT that the order of the AO was erroneous and prejudicial at the interest of the revenue cannot be held as correct. The Ld. PCIT has rather held that the AO did not make addition of Rs. 21,26,201/- on account of accommodatio....