9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ('A.Y.' for short) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has challenged the ld. CIT(A)'s order in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,53,593/- made u/s. 69B of the Act in respect of shares traded by the assessee in VAS Infrastructure Ltd. alleged to be a penny stock. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and is earning brokerage income as estate agency and has also been making investments/trading in shares of various companies by stock exchange through recognized brokers. The assessee had filed his return of income dated 30.08.2012, declaring total income at Rs. 7,68,681/-. The assessee's case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act vide notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 20.03.2019 for the reason that the information received from DDIT (Investi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the financials of M/s. Vas Infrastructure Ltd. does not substantiate the huge share price movement clearly indicating the fact that it was a penny stock for the purpose of providing accommodation entries by way of LTCG/STCG/STCL. The ld. DR relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj (IA No.GA/1/2022 In ITAT/6/2022 vide order dated 28.03.2022) and also relied on the order of the A.O. 8. The learned Authorised Representative ('ld. AR' for short) for the assessee, on the other hand, contended that the assessee has been a regular investor in shares and relied on pg no. 61 of the paper book for the details containing the investment made by the assessee in shares. The ld. AR furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in Bombay Stock Exchange and had examined the share price ranging from Rs. 6.50 to a high of Rs. 173.40 between 06.04.2009 and 10.11.2010. The A.O. further observed that the share price fell back to Rs. 37.70 on 08.03.2012 and further had come down to Rs. 12.90 and so on. The A.O. held that the assessee's investment in these shares was merely to avail accommodation entries by way of bogus LTCG/STCG/STCL. The ld. CIT(A), on the other hand, observed that the assessee had traded in these shares through online mode through BSE registered broker M/s. Lalkar Securities P. Ltd. and that all the payments have been made through the running current account to the said broker. The ld. CIT(A) further held that all these transactions are STT and brok ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Vas Infrastructure Ltd. We are not in agreement with this submission of the ld. AR for the reason that the decision in other cases of penny stock cannot be a binding precedent in this case, as the facts of each case has to be considered in isolation with regard to the evidences available in that particular case. We are also conscious of the fact that mere suspicion that the assessee has invested in alleged penny stock scrip cannot be made basis of addition u/s. 69B of the Act. In the absence of any material evidences to corroborate the information received from DDIT that M/s. Vas Infrastructure Ltd. is a penny stock, we find no justification in upholding the addition made by the A.O. On this note, we find no infirmity in the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
