TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 997
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng in the scrip of M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd. Accordingly, a notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act was issued and after considering the reply of the assessee, the AO had passed an order u/s. 148A(d) of the Act and issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 04.04.2022. In the course of assessment, the AO had made an addition of Rs15,93,499/- in respect of sale consideration of shares of M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd. The assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 29.02.2024 at total income of Rs 3,33,47,489/-. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the AO, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which was decided by Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding reopening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act which is bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming disallowance of exempted long-term capital gain of Rs. 15,93,499/- u/s 10(38) of the Act arising from sale of shares of M/s Oasi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was proper. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record and examined the sequence of events in the present case. It is noted that the AO had issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act on 09.03.2022, whereby the information available with him was duly confronted to the assessee. Thereafter, after considering the response furnished by the assessee, the AO had passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 23.03.2022. Subsequently, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 04.04.2022. Thus, the material on record demonstrates that the information available with the AO was not acted upon mechanically without affording an opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was confronted with the information, his reply was taken into consideration and a conscious decision was thereafter taken by the AO u/s 148A(d) of the Act before issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act. The mere fact that the information leading to initiation of proceedings was available on the Insight Portal does not, by itself, render the subsequent proceedings invalid. Information received through an internal departmental information system can constitute the starting....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....td. through recognized broker and were duly reflected in de-mat account of the assessee is not under dispute. From the copy of de-mat account brought on record in the paper book, it is found that the assessee was a regular investor in shares and had dealt in the shares of AVI Polymers limited, Housing and Urban Development Corporation Limited, IFCI Limited, Indian Railway Finance Corporation Limited, Indian Renewable Energy development Agency Limited, National Highway Authorities Limited, Nayara Energy Limited, NTPC Limited etc. Thus, the trading by the assessee in the shares of M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd. was not one-off transaction. The assessee had brought on record the copy of contract notes, bank statement, de-mat holding and transaction statement. No evidence has been brought on record by the AO that any cash was exchanged by the assessee at the time of purchase or sale of these shares. Under the circumstances, the finding of the AO that LTCG derived by the assessee in the shares of M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd. was bogus is found to be based on mere presumption and not on any material evidence. The assessee had duly explained these transactions through the evidences and there was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claimed LTCG under section 10(38) arising out of sale of shares of S and had furnished complete evidence including contract note of shares, de-mat details, detail of bonus shares, since no adverse evidence was brought against said evidences, Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition under section 68 merely on allegation that assessee was a beneficiary of penny stock scrip. The findings of the Hon'ble Court are reproduced below: [16] Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the Revenue, the Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. sold by the assessee cannot be doubted as bogus and exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act was rightly availed by the assessee. The Tribunal has also concluded that the presumption drawn by the Assessing Officer was not corroborated by any evidence to establish the alleged nongenuine transaction by the assessee. It was, therefore, rightly held by the Tribunal that the claim of the assessee for exemption of Long Term Capital Gains under Section 10(38) of the Act cannot be held to be bogus on the basis of presumption in absence of any evidence brought on record by the assessee with regard to....