TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... party statements e) Without any proof of refund of cash f) By wrongly correlating general data of listed company with the Appellant g) Without any name of the Appellant appearing in the statements recorded of the third parties. 3) In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in adding a further sum of Rs. 58,048/- being 2% alleged commission paid on cash credit u/s 68 amounting to Rs. 29,02,400/- on an ad hoc basis. 4) In the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeal) NFAC erred in confirming all the addition and dismissed all the grounds of appeal including reopening without granting personal hearing through video conferencing even though a specific request made by the appellant. 5) The AO wrongly charged interest u/s 234A, B and C and also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c)." Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. The assessee is an individual and is regularly assessee to tax. For the year under consideration, assessee could not file the return of income. On a query being raised by the bench the Ld.AR submitted that, the head of the family....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for any assessment year subsequent to the relevant assessment year, the claim of the assessee that income earned as bogus long term capital gains is business income cannot be considered as a valid claim. 4.6 Conclusion drawn As per the paste ITRs filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 to AY 2015-16, assessee has not declared any business income except for one A.Y, Therefore, the claim of business income in the present year cannot be considered a valid claim. Further, assessee has accepted the income earned from sale of shares as bogus and non genuine transaction and offered the same as business income in her ITR filed for the relevant assessment year." 3. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed as held as under: "4.4 I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the submission of the appellant and evidences on record, it is seen that the profit earned from sale and purchase of shares was admitted by the appellant as a Business Income in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of Act. the AO did not accept it as business income as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of Ld.CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. The ld. AR filed paper book consisting of 60 pages. It is submitted that page 22-60 of paper book are filed before this Tribunal for the first time. The Ld.AR submitted that, these pages consists of contract notes, bank statement, broker ledger account, holding statements showing the activities of purchase and sale of shares of Goenka Business & Finance Ltd. and other companies. The assessee filed an application dated 29/01/2025 under Rule 29 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules for admission of this additional evidence. 4.1. The Ld.AR submitted that, these documents are crucial to consider the claim of assessee. It is submitted that these documents were missed out to be filed before the authorities below as the entire premise of reopening proceeded on the issue of whether assessee was carrying out purchase and sale of share as her business activity. The Ld.AR submitted that, assessing officer as well as the first appellate authority confirmed the addition only on the basis of assessee was not caring out trading activity and was not earning any income under the head business or profession from equity sha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the paper book Ld.AR submitted that in computation for income for A.Y. 2014-15, the assessee declared long term capital gains from sale of shares. He submitted that during the A.Y. 2015-16, the assessee purchased share of Goenka Business and Finance Ltd. at a cost of Rs. 62,500/- and during the year under consideration the said share were sold by the assessee and the sale proceeds were declared under the head, income from business. He submitted that the assessee offered the gains to tax u/s. 28 of the Act. 7.2. The Ld.AR submitted that as and when the assessee sold shares held with intention as investment, such income was declared under the head income from capital gain. Whereas the shares those were held for the purposes of trading were sold, such income was declared under head income from business. He thus submitted that, this is not the first year in which the assessee trade in shares and declared income under the head business income. The Ld.AR referred to page 2 of the paper book being the computation of income for A.Y. 2009-10, wherein the assessee had income from speculation business. He thus submitted that the basis on which the disallowance is made by the authorities be....