TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1422
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eficiary of accommodation entries of bogus Long Term Capital Gain from sale of shares of M/s Goenka Business and Finance Ltd. Assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 of the Act on 24/01/2022 by making an addition of Rs. 47,22,700/- u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 24/01/2022, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 19/09/2022, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 19/09/2022, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered in the order of the Tribunal dated 06/11/2024 in Assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013-14, ITA No. 2624/Del/2022 and 2625/Del/2022. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeal. 4. Per contra, the ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the lower authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Assessee. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2012-13 and 2013....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssistance of the learned Counsels and we have no reason to interfere. There is a finding of fact by the Tribunal that the transaction of purchase and sale of the shares of the alleged penny stock of shares of Ramkrishna Fincap Ltd. ("RFL") is done through stock exchange and through the registered Stock Brokers. The payments have been made through banking channels and even Security Transaction Tax ("STT") has also been paid. The Assessing Officer also has not criticized the documentation involving the sale and purchase of shares. The Tribunal has also come to a finding that there is no allegation against assessee that it has participated in any price rigging in the market on the shares of RFL. 3. Therefore we find nothing perverse in the order of the Tribunal. 4. Mr. Walve placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central)-1 vs. NRA Iron & Steel (P.) Ltd. but that does not help the revenue in as much as the facts in that case were entirely different. 5. In our view, the Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AO had proceeded predominantly on the basis of the analysis of the financials of M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited. His conclusion and findings against the Respondent are chiefly on the strength of the astounding 4849.2% jump in share prices of the aforesaid company within a span of two years, which is not supported by the financials. On an analysis of the data obtained from the websites, the AO observes that the quantum leap in the share price is not justified; the trade pattern of the aforesaid company did not move along with the sensex; and the financials of the company did not show any reason for the extraordinary performance of its stock. We have nothing adverse to comment on the above analysis, but are concerned with the axiomatic conclusion drawn by the AO that the Respondent had entered into an agreement to convert unaccounted money by claiming fictitious LTCG, which is exempt under Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d money for getting benefit of LTCG, as alleged. In the absence of any such material that could support the case put forth by the Appellant, the additions cannot be sustained. 12. Mr. Hossain's submissions relating to the startling spike in the share price and other factors may be enough to show circumstances that might create suspicion; however the Court has to decide an issue on the basis of evidence and proof, and not on suspicion alone. The theory of human behaviour and preponderance of probabilities cannot be cited as a basis to turn a blind eye to the evidence produced by the Respondent. With regard to the claim that observations made by the CIT(A) were in conflict with the Impugned Order, we may only note that the said observations are general in nature and later in the order, the CIT(A) itself notes that the broker did not respond to the notices. Be that as it may, the CIT(A) has only approved the order of the AO, following the same reasoning, and relying upon the report of the Investigation Wing. Lastly, reliance placed by the Revenue on SumanPoddar v. ITO (supra) and SumatiDayal v. CIT (supra) is of no assistance. Upon examining the judgment of SumanPoddar (supra....