TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 125
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tation on behalf of the assessee inspite of several opportunities given, notably the Bench had also on the earlier occasion directed the assessee to appear inspite of giving a last opportunity, none appeared before us on behalf of the assessee. We, therefore, proceed to decide this appeal by hearing the Learned Departmental Representative ('Ld. DR' for short) and on perusal of the materials available on record. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The Learned CIT(A) passed appeal order Ignoring the principal of natural justice. In fact, the appellant had asked for the adjournment of hearing in response of first hearing notice. The learned CIT(A) had passed the order without giving an opportunity of hea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons of Vivaad Se Vishwaas, 2024 and whether to go for Settlement of Disputes or not. The Ld. CIT(A) without considering the request of the appellant passed an appeal order. Hence, the appellant had been denied of reasonable opportunity of hearing and violation of principle of natural justice. 7. The Learned CIT(A) had erred of fact as well as of Law by sustaining the addition made by the Ld. AO u/s 68 of Rs 1,03,15,740/- by treating entire sales considered received by the appellant as an unexplained credit without considering the explanations and documents submitted by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred of fact as well as of law by confirming the addition made u/s 69C of Rs 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnational Ltd.) for a consideration of Rs. 4,14,500/- @Rs.8.29 per share and subsequent to this, splitting of shares into 5,00,000 shares, the assessee sold the same for consideration of Rs. 1,03,15,740/- thereby claiming a Long Term Capital Gain ('LTCG' for short) amounting to Rs. 98,48,770/- during the year under consideration. The Learned Assessing Officer ('AO' for short) sought for details pertaining to the said transaction alleged to be a penny scrip for the purpose of availing bogus LTCG u/s 10(38) of the Act as exempt in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 1,03,15,740/- u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained investment and Rs. 3,09,472/- as unexplained cash expenditure u/s 69C of the Act thereby determining the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on entries. The Ld. AO held the transaction to be a non-genuine after considering the circumstantial evidences where the price of the alleged penny scrip was rigged for the purpose of bogus transactions, which the beneficiaries would take advantage of the exorbitant increase in the price of the share without any justifiable cause or reason. The Ld. AO had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Pr. CIT, Nagpur and others in ITA No.18/2017 where on identical facts it was held that the assessee had indulged in dubious transaction for accounting the undisclosed income in the guise of LTCG. The first appellate authority though had passed a cryptic order, upheld the additio....