9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as relied upon by Ld. AR as well as also consider the events arising out of orders passed by SEBI in case of this scrip. All the issues are kept open. The grounds thus raised stands allowed for statistical purposes. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the issue in the present appeal. The Ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 3. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record including cited order of the Tribunal. Our adjudication to the subject matter would be as given in succeeding paragraphs. Assessment Proceedings 4.1 The assessee being resident individual was assessed u/s 143(3) on 29/12/2016 wherein it was saddled with impugned addition of ₹ 236.02 Lacs u/s 68 on account of sale proceeds of certain shares. Another consequential addition of ₹ 7.08 Lacs was made u/s 69C which was nothing but estimated expenditure of 3% allegedly paid by assessee in procuring the bogus long term capital gains. 4.2 It transpired that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of assessee, it transpired that the assessee sold shares on various dates to number of buyers as detailed in para 7.1 of the order. Notices issued u/s 133(6) to all such purchasers were returned back in most of the cases. The analysis of financial statement of M/s SAL revealed that its financial worth was insignificant which would not justify such abnormal increase in the price as shown. 4.4 It also transpired that the assessee initially purchased shares of an entity namely Santoshima Tradelink Limited (M/s STL) in offline mode from M/s Silverrice Multi Trading Pvt. Ltd. @₹ 20/- per share. M/s STL got merged into M/s SAL with the approval of Hon'ble Bombay High Court. Accordingly, new shares were issued to the assessee which were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 given by the assessee, the assessee could not comment about performance of the company. The argument of cross-examination as sought by the assessee was to be rejected since the same was sought at the fag-end of the assessment which was nothing but to linger the assessment proceedings. Therefore, at this stage, the same could not be provided to the assessee. Finally, in the background of various judicial pronouncements, the LTCG of ₹ 236.02 Lacs were added to the income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. The Ld.AO estimated another addition of expenditure @3% against these transactions. Appellate Proceedings 5.1 During appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed the additions by way of elaborate written submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evidence to explain as to how the shares of an unknown company worth ₹ 5/- had jumped to ₹ 485/- in no time. Finally, the assessee's appeal was not admitted. The ratio of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumati Dayal V/s CIT (214 ITR 801) as well as in Kanwar Natwar Singh was also noted while adjudicating the issue. 5.3 It was further observed by Ld. CIT(A), in para-7.4, that the scrip dealt with by the assessee was identified as penny stock because the share prices were not based on business results but the same were inflated by insider's trading solely to generate bogus capital gains or losses. The assessee failed to adduce any plausible reason for unexpected escalation in the price of the scrip. Considering the various j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... linger assessment proceedings. The Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon various judicial pronouncements as enumerated in their respective orders. The Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon the order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Sanjay Bimal Chand Jain V/s Pr. CIT (supra) which has not admitted assessee's appeal. 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR has primarily relied upon the order of coordinate bench of this Tribunal rendered in Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan & ors. V/s DCIT (ITA Nos.7648/Mum/2019 & ors. dated 11/08/2020) to submit that the factual matrix is identical and the case deals with the same scrip. According to Ld. AR, this ratio of this decision would be applicable to the assessee. 8. Proceeding further, during hearing, a clarification wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
