TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1637
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../05/2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer dated 24/09/2021 u/s 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: "1. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the reopening of assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed the addition amounting to Rs. 8,14,100/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. That, the Ld. CIT(A) has wrongly confirmed initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....48 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.03.2020 was issued and duly served on the assessee. In response to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee e -filed return for A.Y. 2013- 14 on 09.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs. 1,29,060/-, Further, notices u/s 143(2) were issued on 30.06.2021 and notice u/s 142(1) were issued on 04.02.2021, 05.08.2021 & 24.08.2021. In response to these notices, the assessee has filed reply on 11.02.2021 & 27.08.2021. 4. The assessing officer, after analyses of reply of the assessee found that alleged purchased and sale of the shares in the scrip of M/s Veronica Production Ltd. /Dhvanil Chemicals Ltd /Shrey Chemicals Ltd in the F.Y. 2012-13 trade value of shares sharp raised was pre-arrange and nothing only....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the identical cases are as under: - - Imran Amroniya A.Y. 2012-13 - Imran Amroniya A.Y. 2013-14 - Jayraj Gadesha A.Y. 2013-14 - Jayraj Gadesha A.Y. 2014-15 - Bhavesh Panchasara A. Y. 2013-14 - Tosif Amroniya A.Y. 2013-14 - Raju Lunagariya A. Y. 2013-14 - Sunil bhatt Α.Υ. 2012-13 The copy of assessment orders for all the above mentioned assessee is enclosed at page no. 52-68." 43. It is therefore stated that reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the Act based on the said ground is bad-in-law." 7. Therefore, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings, on the identical facts, considering the same scrip, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee has reiterated the facts that no bogus long-term capital gain (LTCG) has been claimed. However, AO has failed to consider this essential fact and disposed the objections vide letter dated 23/08/2021. It can be seen from the return of income that the assessee has not claimed any Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares during the year. The relevant extract of the return of income filed is as under: Therefore, the very foundation of reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment that the assessee has booked bogus LTCG is incorrect. The reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are erroneous and fictitious. The reasons are recorded on completely wrong factual premises as there was no live link with the formation of belief for reopening of assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, the income of short-term capital gain, is already mentioned in the books of accounts of the assessee and assessee has offered the same in the income tax return and paid the due taxes, therefore, on such item, there should not be any reassessment proceedings, as the income has not escaped from the assessment. Therefore, assessment in the assessee's case was reopened based on the incorrect facts and incorrect presumption. Moreover, the Assessing Officer did not provide the information of reopening to the assessee. Apart from these reasons were recorded by the Assessing Officer on borrowed satisfaction without application of mind. Hence, I quash the reassessment proceedings and allow the appeal of the assessee. As the reassessment itself i....