TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12, raising following grounds: "1. Reopening of Assessment 1) The learned ITO erred in reopening the assessment u/s. 147 and issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2) The learned ITO erred in reopening assessment merely based on information received from DCIT without forming independent belief with regard to escapement of income. 3) The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Short Term Capital Loss amounting to Rs. 16,60,821/- on sale of shares of Comfort Intech Ltd., treating the same as bogus, without bringing any cogent evidence on record to establish that the transactions were non-genuine. 2. Disallowance of Short term capital loss 1) The Learned CIT(A) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if necessary." 2. Briefly stated, the assessee filed its return of income electronically on 30.07.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 16,72,231/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"] on 29.03.2018. The reasons for reopening were stated to have been recorded on the basis of information received from the DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai, that M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. was a penny-stock company allegedly involved in providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus long-term capital gains through trading in penny stocks. 2.1 The information so received further stated that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lts and that the transactions were not supported by the market factors prevailing at the relevant time. He accordingly held that the assessee had failed to establish the genuineness of the transaction and sustained the disallowance of the short-term capital loss. 3. Before us, the learned counsel for the assessee filed a paper book comprising pages 1 to 98. He also filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 seeking admission of additional evidence, comprising, inter alia, the bank statement of Corporation Bank and the transaction statement issued by CDSL, placed at pages 78 to 98 of the paper book. 3.1 The learned counsel submitted that the controversy relates to the disallowance of short-ter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s sustained the disallowance essentially on the premise that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions and the economic basis of the substantial movement in the price of the shares. The assessee, on the other hand, seeks to place before us bank statements and CDSL transaction statements, besides other documents forming part of the paper book, in support of the actual purchase and sale transactions. We are of the view that the documents sought to be admitted are not peripheral or collateral to the controversy. They bear directly upon the factual question which lies at the heart of the dispute, namely, whether the transactions of purchase and sale of shares were actually undertaken by the assessee in the manner c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, the question whether these documents satisfactorily establish the purchase, payment, holding and sale of the shares, and whether they have any bearing upon the conclusions drawn by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A), involves factual examination. The Tribunal is undoubtedly the final fact-finding authority; however, where material evidence relevant to the determination of the factual controversy is produced for the first time at the appellate stage, it would be appropriate that the lower appellate authority is afforded an opportunity to examine the same and record its findings after granting due opportunity to the Assessing Officer, wherever required. 4.5 We, therefore, consider it just and proper to set aside t....