9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issed - I.T.A. No: 36/Chny/2020, 38/Chny/2020 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) - - - Dated:- 24-6-2021 - SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: None Respondent by: Shri. G. Johnson, Addl. CIT ORDER PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTATN MEMBER: The above assessees filed these appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Chennai in ITA Nos. 120/CIT(A)-12/2013-14 09/CIT(A)-12/2014-15 dated 08.11.2019 for the assessment year 2009-10, respectively. 2. Smt. Manjula Kothari and Shri. Kashyap Kothari, the assessees claimed to have purchased the shares of a company, Zen Shaving Ltd in July/June 2006, respectively by paying cash and sold the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s loose authenticity and therefore, the AO treated the deposit amount of the assessees as unexplained credit/investment and completed the assessments. Aggrieved, the above assessees filed appeals before the CIT(A). Based upon the assessees submission, the Ld. CIT(A) called for remand reports from the AOs. After considering the assessees comments on the remand reports and after considering the assessees explanation etc on the remand report, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved against those orders, the above assessees filed these appeals with common ground of appeals. Therefore, as a model, the grounds of appeal in the case of Smt. Manjula Kothari is extracted as under: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the name of the assessee is not mentioned in the list provided by the broker which was alleged wrongly by the learned Assessing Officer. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in relying upon case laws that are wholly distinguishable on law and facts. 7. That the learned company has failed to notice that the learned Assessing Officer has not followed the decision of the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and inflating the share price of the company. 8. The appellant craves leave for any other additional grounds that may b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transaction is sham and the test of preponderance of probability is applied in the absence of any credible evidence from the part of the appellant to prove his case. It is clear from the transaction that the company of unknown credentials and a track record of poor performance cannot in normal circumstances fetch such higher share prices. 15. In the case of current appellant, it has been clearly found, that the entire transaction was fraudulent to create undue and illegal benefit to the appellant. It is immaterial whether the assessee has used banking channels or not. It is also clear that the appellant has entered into the transaction knowing well that the companies agents and other persons involved in the organized racket are aidi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
