AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....portal. The AO reopened assessment without having any tangible evidence for escapement of income and without application of mind. The ld CIT(A)-NFAC has disposed-off of this ground without considering appellant's submission. The notice issued on borrowed satisfaction is legal and void and consequently assessment based on such notice may kindly be quashed. 3. Ground No. 3-Assessment us. 147 is bad-in-law: The AO has erred in law and on facts in reopening the assessment proceedings on the basis of Information received from Insight Portal. The AO has not provided any tangible evidence of escapement of income except report of Investigation Wing. The Id CIT(A)-NFAC has disposed-off of this ground without considering appellant's submission. Therefore assessment u/s 147 is bad-inlaw and the same may kindly be cancelled/ quashed. 4 Ground No. 4-LTCG of Rs. 3,71,94,167/-: The ld CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,71,94,167/- in terms of Long-term capital gain taken by appellant as bogus. The ld. CIT(A)-NFAC has disposed-off of this ground without considering appellant's submission. Therefore, it is prayed that addition of LTCG as une....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de taxes and launder money. The Assessing Officer therefore made addition Rs. 3,71,94,167/- in respect of sale transaction of M/s. JRI Industries and Infrastructure Ltd. (being scrip). 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that as regards to ground nos. 1 to 3, the assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. For reasons for reopening, it was stated that information was reflected on inside portal that 18 penny scrips were utilized to book bogus LTCG/STCL. However, such information is no-where coming out in the reasons for reopening. The ld. A.R. submitted that whether information uploaded on insight portal is a report of investigation wing, statement recorded by Department, or some piece of material is not known to the assessee or has not mentioned in the assessment order. The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee demanded such information from Assessing Officer in his objections filed against reopening dated 27-12-2021. However, the objections were disposed of on 12-03-2022 without providing such information. During the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eserves to be quashed even on this count. Reliance is placed on the following: * Sabh Infrastructure Ltd. v. ACIT - [2017] 398 ITR 198 (Delhi) * Patel Engineering Ltd. v. DCIT (Bombay) [2022] 136 taxmann.com 115 * Yuva Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO [2023] 150 taxmann.com 187 (Gujarat) * Anurag Gupta v. ITO [2023] 454 ITR 326 (Bombay) * Babcock Borsig Ltd. v. UOI- [2022] 449 ITR 613 (Calcutta) In view of the above, the assessee submitted that the reopening of the assessment by the A.O. is bad in law without jurisdiction and deserves to be quashed. As regards merits of the case, i.e. ground no. 4, the ld. A.R. has given the comment/written submissions which are as follows:- "Assessee claimed exemption u/s. 10(38) of the Act in respect of LTCG arising on sale of shares of JRI Industries and Infrastructure Ltd (earlier known as Jalgaon Re Rolling Ind Ltd) (hereinafter referred to as scrip in question) AO made addition of Rs 3,71,94,167 in respect of aforesaid LTCG u/s. 68 of the Act after concluding that such LTCG is bogus. Such addition has been confirmed by CIT(A) as well. Hence, assessee is in appeal before Hon'ble the ITAT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cannot presume that dealings of the assessee in view of the scrip in question are bogus merely based on "general information; Suspicion howsoever strong, can never take place of "evidence in view of the settled legal position; In this case, A.O. has not carried out any independent inquiry so as to bridge the gap between assessee and information received w.r.t accommodation entries in relation to scrip in question. Without bridging such gap, AO could not have treated LTCG in question as bogus. In any case, AO has taxed only LTCG which implies AO has allowed deduction of cost of acquisition from the total sale consideration of shares as evident from computation of LTCG placed at P/b, Pgs. 96-97. Thus, it is implied that purchase of shares has been admitted to be genuine transaction by A.O. At this stage following aspects may be appreciated: Transactions of purchase and sale of shares go hand to hand. There could not be any sale of shares without actually purchasing shares. Once purchase has been found to be genuine, then corresponding sales of shares cannot be doubted unless and until some adverse material has been brought on record, the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hd/2018; Sanjay P. Mehta vs. DCIT ITA 509/Ahd/2018; Sejalben N. Vora and others - ITA 329-331/Ahd/2018; PCIT vs. Smt Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del). CIT vs. Smt. Sumitra Devi (2014) 229 Taxman 67 (Rajasthan): CIT vs. Udit Narain Agarwal (2013) 213 Taxman 178 (Allhabad): CIT vs Anirudh N. Agarwal (2013) 219 Taxman 126 (Allhabad); Assessed was never confronted with the "report of Investigation Wing, i.e. material used against the assessee for making the impugned addition: AO has extensively relied upon Contents of report of "Investigation Wing but assessee was never confronted with such material which has been used behind the back of assessee for making the addition. If any material is not confronted to an assessee it would not constitute as an "admissible evidence" and hence addition made based on such evidence is to be deleted. Reliance is placed on "Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC)" Opportunity of "cross-examination" has not been afforded: An opportunity of cross-examination has also not been afforded to the assessee It is a settled law that in absence of cross-examinati....