TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1556
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT has erred in deleting the addition made of Rs. 27,65,627/- by the AO on account of cash credit u/s 68 of the Act in the disguise of exempted long term capital gains on account of sale of the share of Nimbus Industries Limited, a penny stock and without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer that the price movement of the company were not supported by financial fundamentals of the company. ii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT has erred in ignoring the facts brought on record establishing manipulation of share prices of Nimbus Industries Limited as the upward movement of share price was not at all justified by the economic ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made under section 69A of the Act, ignoring the fact that the assessee had claimed a lower amount of capital gains in his return of income and did not substantiate the same along-with evidences during assessment. vii. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in the case of PCIT Vs. Swati Bajaj, ITA No. 06/2022, dated 14.06.2022 where facts were identical with the facts of the instant case the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court has upheld the addition made by the AO by reversing the order of the Hon'ble ITAT. viii. On the basis of the facts and circumstances ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appeal." 4. The assessee filed return of total Income on 29.03.2013, declaring the income from share of profit from firm, interest other source and LTCG exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act. The AO made the addition of Rs. 27,65,627/- u/s. 68 rejecting LTCG exempt U/s 10(38) Rs. 2,07,422/- being 7.5% commission paid u/s 69C on account of unexplained expenditure and Rs. 1,00,000/- being difference in LTCG u/s 69A as undisclosed receipts. 5. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The ld. D.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer mentioned vide para 2 of the assessment order that information received from the DDIT (Inv) Mumbai Total sale transactions of shares of Nimbus Industries Ltd o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings u/s 148 for A.Y. 2012-13. Hence, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is defective and ab intio void, have to be quash and cancel. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted various documents to the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings such as Share application form and receipt for Nimbus Ind. Ltd., Copy of ledger account and payment proof for purchase of shares of company, Share certificate of the company duly transferred / allotted in assessee's name, Application for Dematerialisation request of shares of the company, Demat account for relevant period (From Demat to Sale of shares), all contracts of the company for sale of shares through broker online, Copy of ledger ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lidate the reopening. Thus, the reopening and the assessment proceedings are valid. Besides this, the assessee purchase the said shares on 05.04.2010 at Rs. 60,200 and sold the said shares on 17.01.2012 at Rs. 29,25,827/-. Thus, the assessee has not purchase the said scrip at the end of 31.03.2011 but at the beginning of the A.Y. 2011-12 (more specifically on 05.04.2010). The source of the credit is the unaccounted cash of the assessee and the assessee has not given the details of the purchase such as broker's contract note, the source of the amount paid for purchase as well as the dematerialization of the scrip and why immediately after dematerialization of the scrip the said shares/scrip was sold in the market. The entire act of selling t....