2026 (8) TMI 1571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(A)'], Mumbai, pertaining to Assessment Years 2014- 15 and 2016-17. ITA Nos. 227 & 228/Jodh/2026, (Appeals by the Department) 2. The common issues arising in these appeals relate to deletion of additions amounting to Rs. 90,37,714/- and Rs. 8,64,381/- made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act"), for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2016-17, respectively. 3. Briefly the facts, more or less common in both the appeals relating to this issue in dispute are, the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). For both the years under dispute, assessee had filed its original returns of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Act was carried o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Insofar as Assessment Year 2016-17 is concerned, he noticed that the assessee had declared short-term capital loss of Rs. 1,31,98,831/- on sale of shares of Shree Shaleen Textiles Ltd. He observed that as per information available on record, in course of search and seizure operation carried out in case of Shree Shaleen Textiles Ltd., a statement was recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, wherein the person concerned had allegedly admitted to indulging in providing accommodation entries through bogus capital gains/losses. Thus, relying upon the said statement, the Assessing Officer concluded that the short-term capital loss declared by the assessee is bogus. Accordingly, not only he disallowed short-term capital loss claimed by the asse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sofar as Assessment Year 2016-17 is concerned, learned first appellate authority found that not only the assessment was unabated but the addition made was not with reference to any incriminating material found as a result of search and seizure operation carried out in case, in assessee's case. Thus, following the ratio laid down in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (supra), he deleted the addition. 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. In our view, the reasons based on which learned first appellate authority has deleted the additions in both the assessment years under dispute are unassailable. As could be seen from the materials on record, as also the observations of the Assessing Off....