TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Income Tax Act, 1961(In short "the Act"). The assessee also filed the cross objection in the appeal. 2. The revenue following grounds in appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 57,06,000/- made by the AO by treating entire receipts from the sale of shares of M/s City Travel Solutions Ltd. as unaccounted income u/s 67 of the Act, without considering the fact that M/s City Travels Pvt. Ltd. was one of the identified penny stock company as established by the Investigation Wing of the Department which was used for providing accommodation entry and creation of bogus capital gains exempt u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act,1961. 2. That the appellant crave....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arried out by the assessee is a penny stocks and the assessee entered into a bogus transaction. After considering the submission submitted by the assessee the AO completed the assessment after making the addition of Rs. 57,06,000/- under section 68 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide hid order dated 31-12-2024 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed the cross objection in the above said appeal. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that as per the enquiry conducted by investigation wing of the Department and also from NSE, it had established that there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26,DTR 113 (Del.'C') (iii) CIT v. Vishal Exports Overseas Limited, Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009 Gujarat High Court. 7.The Ld.CIT(A), partly allowing the appeal held that: xiv. The appellant assessee has contended vide its grounds no.7 & 7 that...... Ld. Assessing Officer erred on the facts and in law by making addition of Rs. 57,06,000/- under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when said amount already declared as income and accordingly taxed after due verification....". And that, the"...ld. Assessing Officer erred on the facts and in law by making addition of Rs. 57,06,000/- as long term capital gain when sale of shares wea duly accepted by Ld. Assessing Officer as short term capital after detailed inquiry/ investig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. In the cross objection has filed on the following grounds: (i) That the belief could not have been formed for escapement of income. (ii) That four weeks have not been granted to the assessee after the disposal of objections raised by the assessee as per law. (iii) That the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 is bad in law as the mandatory and statutory conditions of section 147 to 151 of the Act have not been complied. 10. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that re-opening is based on the change of opinion on the same facts. The issue on which basis the case was re-opened has been examined and accepted by the AO in the original proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. 11. Reliance has placed on the following dec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the following decisions: (i) Asian paints ltd, Vs. DCIT (2008) 296 ITR 90 High Court of Bombay. (ii) Bharat Jayantilal Patel vs. Union of India (2015) 378 ITR 596 High Court of Bombay (iii) Aroni Commercial Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2014) 362 ITR 403 High Court of Bombay (iv) Hirachand Kanuga vs. DCIT (2015) 68SOT 205 ITAT Mumbai Bench 14. In the case in hand notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14- 12-2021 & 20-01-2021and the assessee was filed his reply on 22-01- 2022. The Ld. AO had decided the objection by order dated 20-03- 2022 and the impugned re-assessment order was passed on 30-03 2022 without leaving a period of four weeks. In the case of Asian Paints Ltd. V. Deputy Commissioner of income tax [200....