2025 (8) TMI 1024

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ort 'the Act') for the A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee by filing a petition dated 07.01.2025 and by taking refuge of the CBDT circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 prayed for dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on the ground that the addition involved in the instant case is of Rs. 21,56,936/- and the tax effect involved is Rs. 12,51,410/- which is below than the limit prescribed in the said circular. 3. The Ld. D.R., on the contrary, demonstrated clause 'h' of the said circular wherefrom it clearly appears that the cases involved arising tax evasion including cases of bogus capital gain/loss through penny stocks and cases of accommodation entries fall under exception of clause 3.1(h) of the circular referred to above. 4. Considering the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....crete evidence, which could prove that the Assessee has ever involved with the operators in the wrong deeds. The AO presumed that the Assessee is involved with the operators in these wrong deeds. The Assessee has also not offered any gains for tax. The Assessee in support of his case also filed duly sworn affidavit before the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld. Commissioner observed that the Assessee acted only as an exit provider and earned commission income which was declared by the Assessee in the return of income. Admittedly, the Assessee has not claimed any exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. Even otherwise, the Department has already taxed the beneficiaries of Long-Term Capital Gain (LTCG) but still for the just and proper decision of the case the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....present case, he has taken different stand for each AY. On the other hand, the appellant has admitted himself that he earned only the commission income by submitting the affidavit from Shri. Deepak Rathod and requesting for the AO to conduct enquiry on him. However, it is not done by the AO in spite of those evidences forwarded to him. 11. The appellant claimed that if the AO allow him to cross examine Sri. Deepak Rathod in the presence of the AO the matter can be solved smoothly. It is for this reason, the Remand Report was called for. On the other hand, the AO simply rejected those evidences without conducting any enquiry on Shri. Deepak Rathod who gave affidavit by explaining the modus operandi. In view of the above, the additio....