9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H COURT] on similar issue which held that the AO should conduct enquiry on the impugned transaction to substantiate that the claim of the assessee for LTCG/STCL is non genuine and further held that the AO can rely on circumstantial evidence based on the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities in such cases where it is beyond the reach to carve out direct evidences. But, in the present case we find that the AO has made no enquiry other than relying on the report of the investigation wing and the steep increase in the price of the shares. We are of the considered opinion that the AO should have done a further analysis and enquired into the genuineness of the alleged transaction. In the present case in hand the assessment order is flawe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Diamant Infrastructure Limited during the impugned year. The assessee was in appeal before the learned CIT(A) challenging the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the ground that the assessee had failed to prove that the share transactions were genuine and that the assessee could not have earned huge profit within a period of few months from buying the shares of unknown company which does not have enough business worth and the same was held as unexplained investment. The assessee is in appeal before us as against the order of the learned CIT(A). 3. It is observed that the assessee s case was reopened pursuant to the information received from DGIT (Inv.), Calcutta that M/s. Diamant Infr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ested in shares and securities, and the purchase and sale of the impugned shares were done in the regular course. The assessee submitted that 5,000 shares were purchased in 2008 and in February 2010 bonus shares of 1:3 was allotted where the face value of these shares in October 2010 was Rs.10/- were split and 80,000 shares were issued at a face value of Rs.2/-. The assessee sold 10,000 shares out of the total holding of 80,000 on 15.07.2011 and held the balance stock to be sold for a good profit in the future. The assessee further stated that all relevant evidences pertaining to the purchase and share of sale by way of contract notes, brokers ledgers/global report, D-mat statements and bank statements were produced before the AO. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has reopened the assessee s case based on the information received from the investigation wing. It is pertinent to point out that the assessment order in the present case does not have any mention about the independent inquiry that was conducted by the AO relevant to the impugned transaction. It is also observed that the AO has failed to examine the alleged Directors of M/s. Diamant Infrastructure Limited as to the nature of business carried out by the said company nor has the AO examined the alleged brokers involved in the impugned transactions. We would like to place our reliance on the decision cited by the assessee in the case of DCIT Vs. Sunita Khumka ITAT, (Cul.) (2016) ITRV- IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
