TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns (LTCG). The return was processed under section 143(1). 3. Subsequently, the AO reopened the assessment based on information received from the Investigation Wing alleging that the assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries through trading in shares of M/s Tilak Venture Limited, alleged to be a penny stock. The AO treated the LTCG of Rs.2,20,36,564/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and further made an ad-hoc addition of Rs.4,40,731/- under section 69C towards alleged commission expenses. The CIT(A) confirmed both additions. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding and sustaining the initiation of reassessment proceedings by issue of notice u/s 148, which is not as per provisions of law, clearly outside the sanction of law, illegal, bad in law, barred by limitation, unsustainable, in gross violation of the principles of natural justice or otherwise void for want of jurisdiction. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se finding against the said bonafide transaction in particular. 6. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's action without appreciating that there is no order of SEBI brought on record or in public domain that indicts the appellant or her broker for any wrong doing or manipulation and also ignoring the fact that the said company continues to be MCA compliant and said scrip continues to be listed on the recognized stock exchange till date. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition/s made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that all requirements such as identity, creditworthiness, genuineness have been satisfactory explained with cogent evidence thereby fully discharging the onus on the appellant particularly coupled with the fact that no further questions were asked and no independent enquiries were conducted by the Assessing Officer to shift the onus back onto the appellant before drawing an adverse inferences. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase for Assessment Year 2013-14 and 2015-16 for the transaction in the same scrip and the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 25.09.2024 in ITA no 3158/Mum/2024 in case of spouse of the appellant for transaction in the same scrip in the assessment year 2015-16. 13. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming the Assessing Officer's action in making ad-hoc addition of Rs 4,40,731/- u/s 69C on account of unexplained commission expenditure on the basis of mere conjectures and devoid of any evidence." 4. The learned Authorised Representative (Ld. AR), at the outset has submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by multiple decisions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal, including decisions involving the same scrip and family members of the assessee. 5. It was submitted that the assessee had applied for allotment of 50,000 equity shares of M/s Tilak Finance Limited on a preferential basis and paid the application money through banking channels. Shares were duly allotted v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8/Mum/2024) ● Smt. Preeti Chirania vs. ITO (ITA No. 4245/Mum/2024) ● Smt. Priyanka Omprakash Bajaj vs. ITO (ITA No. 2929/Mum/2024) ● Shri Yogesh P. Thakkar & Ors. vs. DCIT (ITA Nos. 1605-1611/Mum/2021) 9. The Ld AR argued that consistent ratio emerging from the above decisions is that addition under section 68 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of general investigation reports or alleged price manipulation, when the assessee has: ● purchased shares through identifiable sources, ● held them in demat account, ● sold them through recognised stock exchange, ● received consideration through banking channels, and ● paid applicable STT and other statutory levies. 10. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the additions were justified based on investigation reports outlining the modus operandi of accommodation entries. 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The AO has made additions solely on the basis of general investigation reports witho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at page number 55 to 65 of paper book). ii. The copy of the account of assessee in the books of SEBI registered broker for the assessment year 2015-16 (enclosed at page number 66 of paper book). iii. The copy of SEBI registered brokers' ledger in the books of assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 (enclosed at page number 67 of paper book). iv. A copy of bank statement of account number 01431000151919 at HDFC Bank for the period started from 02.07.2010 to 29.07.2010 highlighting the payment made towards acquisition of shares of Tilak Venture Limited (enclosed at page number 68 of paper book). v. The copy of allotment letter of shares of Tilak Venture Limited (enclosed at page number 69 of paper book). vi. The copy of demat statement for the period started from 01 April, 2010 to 31 March. 2011 highlighting the credit of shares of Tilak Venture Limited in the appellant transaction statement (enclosed at page number 70 of paper book). vii. The copy of demat statement for the period started from 01 April, 2011 to 31 March, 2012 highlighting the split as well as the debit of shares of Tilak Venture Limited (enclosed at page num....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....specially when assessee's name in particular has not even figured in that report for any wrongdoing. 19. Even otherwise, the assessee has been an investor in shares with long term prospective and had made investment in companies like Suzlon Energy 9CIN: L40100GJ1995PLC025447), Perfect Corporate Service Ltd (CIN : U65990MH1995PLC094311), Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd, (CIN: U36991HP1995PLC031163) nd the securities transaction tax, service tax, turnover charges, stamp charges, SEBI fees etc have been duly paid. Therefore, these facts established the credentials of the assessee as bonafide investor. 20. Thus after having gone through the documents filed by the assessee and the revenue, nowhere in the information supplied in their hand material to implicate the assessee calling with programmer / enter provider. The Ld.AO had sought to made additions on the ground that sale of shares and unusual rise in price were not in line with any commercial principle and market factors. Whereas on the contrary the transactions entered into by the assessee is fully supported by the documents / evidences. The assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had also placed o....