AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment Year (AY) 2016-2017. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. In law and in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (Appeal) NFAC has passed the appellate order without providing video hearing as provided in Faceless Appeals Scheme more particularly when Appellant has stated that proper opportunity of being heard should be provided before disposing of the its appeal. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is ex-parte and totally in breach of natural justice. 3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the Appellant, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) NFAC erred in not appreciating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 147 of the Act. As per the information received by the Assessing Officer, the assessee had claimed a fictitious trading loss of Rs. 46,88,950/- through manipulative transactions in shares, despite having a relatively modest income declared in the return. The AO issued notice under section 148 on 31.03.2021 and, in response, the assessee filed a return reiterating the same income of Rs. 2,55,960/-. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued several notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act along with questionnaires asking for documentary evidence and explanations regarding the impugned transactions. However, the Assessing Officer observed that despite repeated opportunities, the assessee failed to submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ultiple dates, the assessee failed to submit any written submissions or documentary evidence in support of his case and sought repeated adjournments. The CIT(A) observed that despite ample opportunities, the assessee neither appeared nor furnished any details to substantiate his claim. The CIT(A) held that the AO had given sufficient opportunities during the assessment proceedings and that, in the absence of cooperation from the assessee, the AO was justified in resorting to best judgment assessment. The CIT(A) further noted that the assessee had failed to explain the alleged trading loss or provide any corroborative evidence to rebut the information received from the Investigation Wing, and therefore the AO's action in treating the loss as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in their respective orders. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The primary issue involved in the present appeal pertains to the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act, and the consequent addition of Rs. 46,88,950/- made by the Assessing Officer by treating the alleged loss as fictitious. We observe that both in the recorded "reasons" for reopening of the assessment as well as in the final assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Act, there is not even an iota of mention as to which particular share or scrip was alleged to be a "penny stock" or bogus transaction. The Assessing Officer has merely made general references to inform....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case and merely acts on borrowed satisfaction. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) laid down that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the material before the Assessing Officer and the formation of belief that income has escaped assessment. 10. In the present case, both the "reasons recorded" and the assessment order are conspicuously silent on which shares were traded by the assessee, what evidence existed to suggest those shares were bogus, or how the alleged loss of Rs. 46,88,950/- was found to be fictitious. The addition has been made solely on the basis of unverified information from external sources without any independent inquiry or corroborative evidence. The AO h....