TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vestment and added to the total income u/s 68 of the Act?" 3. "Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 78,931/-, being commission paid to entry provider/Brokers @ 0.25% for providing accommodation entry which has been added to the total income u/s 69C of the Act ?' 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITA) has erred in Ignoring the fact that action of Assessing Office was based on credible information received from office of DGIT (investigation) Mumbai, which is a premier Investigation Authority of Income-Tax Department and has published the discreet report with a list of penny stocks/ scripts and the assessee has transacted in one of the penny stock te.in M/s. First Financial Services Ltd (Script Code - 51136) and allegedly used this stock for accommodation entry purposes in the grab of Long Term Short Term Capital Gain or Loss?" 5. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the assessee has traded in shares of M/s. First Financial Services Ltd, a penny stock....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions made of Rs. 2,92,12,100/, being the bogus LTCG claimed by the assessee without considering the fact that Assessing Office relying on the report of office of DGIT (Investigation) Mumbai, which is credible authority of Income - Tax Department and in such transactions the onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of the price hike and also has to prove that the price of the share was not manipulated. Reliance is placed on Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj (LA. No. GA/2/2022 in ITAT No. 6 of 2022 dated 14.06.2022" 11. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order of the CIT(A) ignored the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the decisions in Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) and Sumati Dayal (1995) 80 Taxmann 89(SC)/(1995) 2014 ITR 801(SC)/(1995) 125 CR 124 (SC), rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where under it was held that the Court and Tribunal have to judge the evidence before it by applying the test of human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances which exercise had b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for Assessment Year 2013-14, submitted by the Ld. Authorised Representative (A/R). My observations and findings are as under: 5.1 The present appeal arises out of an addition of Rs. 2,92,12,400/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and Rs. 78,931/- on account of alleged commission u/s 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2014-15 declaring a total income of Rs. 18,80,748/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, information was received from the Directorate of Investigation alleging an organised racket of generating bogus LTCG in penny stocks, and on that basis the assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. During the year, the assessee claimed exemption u/s 10(38) in respect of LTCG of Rs. 2,92,12,400/- arising from sale of shares. On examination of share transactions, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had sold 1,18,000 shares of M/s. First Financial Services Ltd. for a total consideration of Rs. 3,15,72,400/-. As per the computation of income, LTCG claimed u/s 10(38) amounted to Rs. 3,14,93,298/-; however, based on AIR data, the total sale consideration of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y preceding year, wherein it was held as under: "We find that despite the interim order dated 06/09/2017 passed by SEBI being specifically brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A), the impugned addition was sustained. Since the very transaction of the assessee in the scrip of First Financial Services Ltd. has been found not to be violative of the provisions of the relevant Act and Rules by SEBI upon necessary investigation, and even the initial restraint order was revoked, there is no basis for sustaining the impugned addition by treating the transaction as a penny stock transaction resulting in bogus long-term capital gains. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 84,45,050/-. The consequential addition of Rs. 22,712/- is also directed to be deleted." 5.4 In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the transaction of the assessee in the scrip of First Financial Services Ltd., resulting in long-term capital gains, has been found to be genuine and not in violation of the provisions of the relevant laws by SEBI after detailed investigation. Consequently, there is no justification for sust....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order on 25/08/2016 sustaining the said restriction till further orders. The relevant pages of the order concerning assessee is at pages 134-135 and 139 of the paperbook. Thereafter on 06/09/2017 after carrying out investigation, SEBI passed order u/s 11, 11(4) and 11B of the SEBI Act observing that no prima facie fraudulent and unfair trade practice has been observed against the assessee before us. SEBI vide order dated 06/09/2017 thus revoked the earlier orders dated 19/12/2014 and 25/08/2016. 4.3. Ld.AR thus, submitted that, assessee exonerated from the allegation that were alleged based on investigations carried out by SEBI. Referring to the order relied by Ld.DR dated 30/09/2022, he submitted that in respect of those against whom SEBI held the unfair trade practice being carried out, penalty was levied for carrying out such illegal activities and assessee's name is not mentioned in the order dated 30/09/2022. Ld.AR heavily placed reliance on the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee's own case (supra). We have perused the submissions advance by both sides in light of the record placed before us. 5. For the year under consideration, assessee so....