TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1971
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l as extracted below:- "1. I stated that an appellate order dated 01-08-2024 was passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against me for Assessment Year 2018-19. Against this order, an appeal was required to be filed by me to the Hon'ble Tribunal within 60 days of its receipt. The appeal is now being filed after delay. 2. I state that in the past, I had suffered from respiratory impairment and had undergone lung transplant surgery. Though this surgery has been lifesaving to me, I have risks of developing infections and uneasiness post this surgery. I am often not able to keep proper track of my tasks and I may tend to forget things in moments of anxiety. 3. When my office received the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on 01-08-2024, it was brought to my notice, But, by mischance and in my moments of anxiety, the order remained to be brought to the notice of my chartered accountant for filing appeal to the Hon'ble Tribunal 4. I state that I got alerted of my lapse in month of January 2025, when I received a notice from the Income Tax Department for recovery of the outstanding demand for the year in appeal. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring the parties." 4. We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue. Ld. AR argued that the reasons given in affidavit seeking condonation of delay, makes out sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5. The Ld. DR supported the judgment of the Ld. CIT (A) and argued that appellant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of so much delay. 6. We have considered the arguments and examined the record. Since the assessee has filed affidavit in support of condonation of delay and no contradictory facts has been brought on record by the revenue to the effect that contents of the affidavit are false. For these reasons, we find it expedient in the interest of justice that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before us. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal is accordingly condoned. 7. The brief facts as culled out from the proceeding before the lower authorities are that the assessee is an individual, has filed return of income for the year under consideration on 20.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs. 53,84,950/-. However as per the information available on record, the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained credits u/s 68 of the Act. 8. The said assessment order was challenged by assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) who confirmed the action of AO and dismissed the appeal of assessee. 9. Thus aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A) the present appeal has been filed and following ground has been raised by the appellant / assessee. 1. Ground no. 1: On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that his assessment had been re-opened by the learned Assessing Officer without having any credible information on hand that suggested that his income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 were illegal and deserve to be quashed in appeal. 2. Ground no. 2:-On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that his assessment was re-opened merely on promptings in the DRI Report and not basis of his any independent enquiry and own decision of the learned Assessing Officer as required u/s 148A. The notice u/s 148 issued was illegal, as being issued without following the mandatory preconditions prescribed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the very outset submitted that both the lower authorities has not considered the relevant documents submitted by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and the purchased shares were dematerialized as per the prescribed procedure and thereafter the same has been sold through the stock exchange. During the arguments, Ld. AR referred the Paper Book 2 containing 3 pages with respect to demat transaction details of the assessee from 10.04.2017 to 01.11.2017. It is further submitted that the assessee is a regular investor in stock market and has also been trading in other scrips Suzlon Energy of 1,09,000 shares and Rain Industries, etc. which established that assessee is regular investor in shares and during the course of investment, assessee has earned STCG and offered the same as income. It is further argued that there is no material brought on record against the assessee by the revenue to show that assessee has played any role in manipulating the penny scrip. Ld. AR further argued that assessee has filed all the necessary documents to prove the genuineness of the transaction which shows that assessee is trader in shares and has even offered the income from STCG whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court noted with concern the colourable devices of tax planning. Considering the gamut of issues dealt with in the assessment order with which the undersigned concurs, the decision of the assessing officer is upheld and Grounds raised in this appeal are dismissed. 6. Lastly the appellant craves to leave, adduce additional grounds. Since no such option has been exercised by the appellant during appeal proceedings, the same is dismissed as infructuous. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed." 13. Ld. AR further referred Paper Book 1 containing 1 to 71 pages and relied upon the case of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in PCIT 31 vs. Indravadan Jain HUF, ITA No. 454/2018 order dated 12th July 2023, wherein the AO has not considered the documents of assessee with regard to penny scrips and Ld. CIT (A) set aside the order of AO while considering the documents submitted by the assessee and on appeal, the said order was also confirmed by the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of revenue. For the sake of clarity, the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in para no. 4 is reproduced below:- "4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y High Court order in ITA No. 454/2018 (supra), the addition made on account of trading in penny scrip was deleted. The relevant portion of the decision of Jurisdictional Tribunal is reproduced below:- "8. We heard the parties and perused the matter on record. The Assessee through share brokers has bought 5029 shares of Pace Electronics Ltd. The name of the said company is subsequently changed to M/s. SVC Resources Ltd. Out of 5029 shares bought the Assessee sold 1377 shares on various dates during the year under consideration. The Assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the gain arising from the said transaction. The AO relied on the investigation report in which the script names M/s. SVC Resources Ltd., was held to be a Penny Stock and accordingly, reopened the assessment of the Assessee for the reason that the Assessee has transacted in the said script. We noticed that the reason for AO to make addition in the hands of the Assessee is that the price of the script is jacked up within a short period of time and that the financial performance of the company does not support the increase in the share prices. We further, noticed that the AO though has ela....