TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1669
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-2016. 2. The Revenue, in this appeal, has been taken the following grounds of appeal: "(a) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 74,67,960/- made by AO on account of Sale of Penny Script M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd treated as unexplained income u/s. 68 of IT Act, despite the fact that credible information was received from Investigation wing that the Script M/s Oasis Tradelink Ltd is used by Shri Naresh Jain and its associates to rig the stock and to provide accommodation entries and assessee has traded in such penny script and obtained accommodation entry of bogus STCG in his books. (b) The Ld.CIT(A) has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Marketing Limited (ACML) 3. Steel Exchange Limited 4. Scan Steels Limited 5. Nyssa Corporation Ltd 6. Divine Multimedia India Ltd / Kaleidoscopic Films Ltd 7. Shantanu Sheoray Aquakult Ltd/52 Weeks Entertainment Ltd. 8. Aagam Capital Ltd (Old Name: Shubhkam Capital Ltd) 9. Oasis Tradelink Ltd 10.Monotype India Ltd. 11. Diamant Infrastructure Ltd. 12. Riddhi Steel & Tube Limited 3.1. The AO further noted that the assessee was also beneficiary of accommodation entry to the tune of Rs. 70,28,400/- from the aforesaid bogus concerns managed and controlled by Shri Naresh Jain. The AO on the basis of the said information, reopened the assessment of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Indusind Bank Ltd., totaling to Rs. 1,54,85,789/-. He also made addition of Rs. 3,09,716/- on account of alleged commission income paid by the assessee to obtain the aforesaid bogus LTCG/STCL. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order of the AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 5. The Ld.CIT(A), however, deleted the additions so made by the AO observing that the the reasons mentioned by the Ao on the basis of which he formed the belief that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment stating that the assessee had obtained bogus accommodation entry of Rs. 70,28,400/- were factually incorrect. Further that, even the assessee had not shown any LTCG by trading in this scrip of M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd., rather, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the nature of transaction, from which company managed and controlled by Shri Naresh Jain the assessee had obtained the accommodation entry and in what manner. The information available to the AO on Insight Portal was general and vague information. The AO did not correlate the said information with the accounts of the assessee. Even the said information on the basis of which the assessment was reopened, was found factually incorrect. 8. As noted above, the Assessing Officer, in this case, has reopened the assessment solely on the basis of the general and vague information available on the insight portal of the department without verifying the veracity and truthfulness of such information. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Dr. Jagmi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice of the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief regarding escapement of income. The powers of Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment, though wide, are not plenary. The words of the statute are "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect". There can be no manner of doubt that the words "reason to believe" suggest that the belief must be that of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds and that the Income-tax Officer may act on direct or circumstantial evidence but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour. The Income-tax Officer would be acting without jurisdiction if the reason for his belief that the conditions are satisfied does not exist or is not material or relevant to the belief required by the se....