9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eport of Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata and also poor financials of the penny stock companies but having sharp, drastic and abnormal increase in share price, held such long term capital gain from sale of such shares as bogus and confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO u/s. 68 of the Act and also confirmed the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, thereby treating the assessment order as erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Assessee having failed to controvert this finding by placing any other binding precedence of Hon ble Supreme Court in its favour we fail to find any infirmity in the finding of the ld. PCIT holding the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dt. 25-05-2017 as erroneous a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That under the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT, Kolkata-15 erred in treating the LTCG of Rs.72,30,7151- claimed on the sale of shares of CCL International Ltd to be bogus and therefore setting aside the order dt.25.05.2017 u/s.l43(3) of the Income Tax ct, 1961 passed by the AO holding the same to be erroneous so far as it was prejudicial to the interest of revenue in terms of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act,1961. The order, so passed, is bad in law and therefore need to be quashed. 2. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 4. Brief facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f hearing the assessee was asked as to why not the judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Swati Bajaj dt. 14-06-2022 may be applied against it since the facts of the instant case are similar to the facts adjudicated by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra). However, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee failed to controvert. 8. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of the ld.PCIT and also stated that ratio laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj supra is squarely applicable against the assessee and revenue deserves to succeed 9. We have heard the rival contentions and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as bogus and confirmed the addition made by the ld. AO u/s. 68 of the Act and also confirmed the order passed u/s. 263 of the Act, thereby treating the assessment order as erroneous and so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 11. We, therefore, are of the considered view that since the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj supra is squarely applicable on the issue raised by the assessee in the instant appeal and ld. Counsel for the assessee having failed to controvert this finding by placing any other binding precedence of Hon ble Supreme Court in its favour we fail to find any infirmity in the finding of the ld. PCIT holding the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act dt. 25-05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
