TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vey, inquiries conducted in the case of the assessee"). The Appellant further submits that he never visited India during the year under appeal and being a Salaried Non-Resident employee. he was incapable of having and converting unaccounted income-a presumption attached to the order of assessment. 3. The Appellant submits and states that he made all transactions for trading only through Non Resident External A/c of the Bank with D-mat a/c the statement of which is attached along with this Appeal Form for perusal of the Hon'ble members of the Tribunal. 4. The investigation said to be conducted by the Department with the penny stack company speaks nothing about the Appellant and there was nothing for the Appellant to derive benefit but to suffer loss unknowingly. The Appellant further submits and states there was no adverse comments against the Appellant by any of the persons giving statements before the Officers of the Investigation Wing of the Department. No adverse statement or piece of evidence against the Appellant was brought on in the order of assessment. 5. In this connection, the Appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court decision in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Short Term Capital Loss (STCL) of Rs. 29,02,792/-. The AO treated the STCL as bogus and denied the benefit of carry forward of the said loss. The AO also treated the entire sale consideration amounting to Rs. 3,58,99,304/- as addition under section 68 of the Act. The AO also made an addition at 3% towards the commission as addition under section 69C of the Act. The assessee raised its objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The DRP rejected the contentions of the assessee and upheld the addition made by the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the final order of assessment passed by the AO pursuant to the directions of the DRP. 3. The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) at the outset submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case for AY 2017-18 (ITA No.2439/MUM/2024 dated 14.01.2025) in which the assessee has earned STCG by sale of the alleged bogus scrip of Kushal Ltd and that the Coordinate Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue confirming the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions made by the AO under section 68 of the Act. On merits, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee has submitted the Demat statement, Bank statement, etc. before the lower authorities in support of the impugned transaction and that the AO in the assessment order has acknowledged the same. We further notice from the perusal of the computation of income (page 5 of paper book) pertaining the year under consideration, that the assessee has transacted in number of scrip during the year under consideration which resulted in total STCL of Rs. 1,86,46,184/- and that the alleged bogus scrip of Kushal Ltd. is a part of the list of scrip traded by the assessee (page 8 to 12 of paper book). We also notice that entire transaction of purchase and sale of various scrip is routed through assessee's demat account and that the funds for the acquisition of shares of Kushal Ltd. are reflected in the Bank statement of the NRE a/c with Axis Bank (page 15 to 17 of paper book). Therefore we are unable to find merit in the findings of the DRP that the assessee has not explained the purchases and the source of acquisition before the AO. We further notice that the assessee for the AY 2017-18 has traded in the alleged bogus scrip of Kushal Ltd. and has earned the STCG which was treated as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ital Gain on the sale of shares has been offered to tax by the appellant. The appellant had purchased the shares which were transferred to his Demat Account, and, no specific allegation has been made by Shri Ashish Pannalal Shah against the appellant on the above purchase & sale of shares of Kushal Limited/Kushal Group by the appellant. The assessing officer has not pointed out from the statement of Shri Ashish Pannalal Shah that he (Ashsish Pannalal Shah) had taken the name of the appellant with regard to obtaining any benefit on the issue of such bogus /sham transactions of shares of Kushal Limited/Kushal Group. The sale of shares of Kushal Limited/Kushal Group has taken place through the demat account. 6.3 The ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Renu Aggarwal (WP for SLP Nos. 13033 of 2023 dated 03/07/2023 and the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Indravadan Jain, HUF (ITXA No. 454 of 2018) dated 12/07/2023 as relied upon by the appellant is found to be applicable to the present appellant's case. 6.4 In view of the above, it cannot be said that the purchase and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said material on record shows that both purchase and sale transactions were made through stock exchange during the relevant previous year and the Assessee had earned Short Term Capital Gain from the purchase/sale transactions under consideration. A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that the Assessing Officer has moved on the premise that the Assessee has entered into transactions under consideration with the object of exploiting the Long Term Capital Gains exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act whereas the Assessee has earned Short Term Capital Gains which have been offered to tax. The payments for purchase/sale of shares are reflected in the Bank Statements and the same reconcile with the entries in the Demat Account Statement. We note that the Assessing Officer has made the addition by primarily relying upon the report of investigation wing and had not carried out any independent inquiry or verification. Thus, while the Assessee had discharged the primary onus, the Revenue had failed to bring on record any material/information to shift the onus back onto the Assessee. Thus, we confirm the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of INR. 3,86,67,529/- made by the As....