2025 (2) TMI 1853

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cript M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd during the F.Y. 2010-117" 2. "Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 69C of the L.T. Act of Rs. 2,704/-, being commission paid to entry provider for obtaining of accommodation entries of bogus LTCG/ STCL by trading in penny stock scripts?" 3. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CITA) has erred in ignoring the fact that action of Assessing Officer was based on credible information received from office of Dy. CIT( Central Circle), Unit-3(4), Mumbai that assessee had engaged in trading activities of shares in M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd, which was flagged as a penny stock and allegedly ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t the price of the share was not manipulated. Reliance is placed on Calcutta High Court decision in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj (I.A. No.GA/2/2022 in ITAT No. 6 of 2022 dated 14.06.2022. 7. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order of the CIT(A) Ignored the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the decisions in Durga Prasad More(1971) 82 ITR 540(SC) and Sumati Dayal (1995) 80 Taxmann 89(SC)/[1995] 2014 ITR 801(SC) /[1995) 125 CTR 124 (SC), rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where under it was held that the Court and Tribunal have to judge the evidence before it by applying the test of human probabilities, the surrounding circumstances which exercise had been done by the Assessi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has not claimed any long term capital gain at all and hence addition could not be sustained. Consequently, the addition made as unaccounted commission for getting accommodation entry was also deleted. 4. As the Revenue was not satisfied with the order of Ld. CIT(A), an appeal was instituted with the grounds of appeal mentioned in page No. 1 of this order. 5. During the hearing proceedings before the Bench, Ld. DR relied on the assessment order and requested the Bench to sustain the addition by deleting the order of Ld. CIT(A). 6. Ld. AR of the appellant has vehemently argued that there is no long term capital gain claimed by the appellant in his return of income and hence there is no basis for making any addition and consequently u....