AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the group by which the said company/companies were being controlled and managed were not actually carrying out any genuine business and during the investigation various concerns were found to be non-existent." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, Assessee being a Director of the Company M/s East Delhi Leasing Pvt. Ltd., filed original return for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 6,39,41,830/-. Information has been received by the A.O. through insight portal stating that, a search and survey operation u/s 132/133 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) was conducted by the office of the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-3(3), Delhi on Dutta and Tyagi Group on 16/05/2018 and it was established that scrip M/s Yamini Investment Company Limited 'YICL' was managed and controlled to benefit certain pre-decided persons. Based on the said information, the case of the Assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act has been issued to the Assessee. An assessment order came to be passed on 18/05/2023 by making an addition of Rs. 13,41,93,651/- on account of unexplained u/s 68 of the Act and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(supra), thus, relying on the findings and the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A), sought for dismissal of the Appeal filed by the Revenue. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO in following manners: "6.1.4. On perusal of the details on record of the investigation wing, neither the assessee's name nor the share broker through which assessee traded are reflected in any list involved in the manipulation of the scrip and artificial rigging of share prices and who were the actual beneficiaries of obtaining ill-gotten gains through the scrip of M/s Yamini Investment Company Limited. Nowhere the assessee's conduct falls under any of the adverse effects. There is no direct evidence against the assessee but all these entries had cast a shadow of test of genuineness of the transaction. There is absolutely no evidence brought on record by the revenue in the instant case before me that assessee had either approached the alleged tainted parties/ entry operators who were involved in artificial rigging of share price of M/s Yamini Investment Company Limited in order to receive ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... banking channels and through stock exchange platform; (b) the shares were received and issued through the Demat account of the assessee. It has been noticed that the assessee is a regular investor in shares. Further, the AO has not found any defect/deficiencies in the evidences furnished by the assessee with regard to purchase and sale of shares. Further, the AO has not brought on record any material to show that the assessee was part of the group which involved in the manipulation of prices of shares. It has been noticed that the shares were purchase in an earlier year and the said purchase has not been suspected by the AO. Hence, there is no reason to suspect the purchase and sale of shares undertaken by the assessee. It has been noticed earlier that the AO did not establish any link between the assessee and the reports of investigation wing. At this stage, I may refer to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Adamine Construction P Ltd (99 taxman 45), wherein, while dismissing the appeal of Revenue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the following observations made by Hon'ble Delhi High Court: - "What is evident is that the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings and merely relied upon the information received from investigation wing and failed to conduct an independent inquiry against the claim of the assessee. Absolutely, there is no direct or indirect evidence against the assessee which has been brought on record by the lower authority to justify the addition by denying the claim of exemption under Long-term capital gain (hereon refer to as LTCG) for the assessee. The lower authority had merely relied on third party information in this regard. It is pertinent to note that the transaction of purchase of shares made by the assessee in this regard has been accepted and no doubts or adverse inference has been drawn on the same. These investments in shares were made in 06-02-2012 and were allotted on 08-02-2012. The payments for the same had been made by account payee cheque out of the disclosed bank account by the assessee. These shares were duly purchased through the stock exchange and were held by the assessee for more than three years. The assessee decided to sell the shares in tranches on various dates during the period 28-05-2015 to 06-08-2015 (after holding for more than 3 years). These shares were admittedly sold through a re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mman.com 578 and decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CCIT (OSD) Vs. Nilesh Jain (HUF) 163 taxmann.com 229, among others. Now we are left with a situation wherein, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has decided in favour of the assessee and some non Jurisdictional High Court had given divergent views. When there is a decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the same would prevail over other High Courts, Tribunal and this Tribunal need not take cognizance of the Hon'ble Non- Jurisdictional High Court or for that matter any other Tribunal decision. The law is very well settled by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation Ltd reported in 55 ELT 43 (1991) that the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court would have higher precedence value than the decision of the Hon'ble Non-Jurisdictional High Court or the Tribunal. Hence, we deem it follow the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the instant case before us. 14. Further, we find that in assessee's brother's case, Shri Rajiv Madan, in respect of identical facts of sa....