9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. AO failed to give the description as to how the assessee is involved in anything related to wrongly calming the Short Term Capital Loss or Long Term Capital Gains. The CIT(A) also failed to give the reasons as to how the transactions of the assessee while dealing with VAS Infrastructure Limited in the present case is a bogus Long Term Capital Gain/bogus Short Term Capital Loss/bogus Business Loss. AO has also not mentioned as to under which provision of Income Tax Statute the addition has been made. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition - Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. - Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sulabh, AR For the Revenue : Ms. Saumya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition without considering the statement of facts and documentary evidences filed before him at the time of filing of appeal. lt is submitted that the documentary evidences such as stock summary showing purchase and sale of various shares made during the year, Audited accounts, Tax Audit Reports, Assessment order for AY 2011-12 etc. were filed along with statement of facts and were on record. It is therefore submitted that the action of Learned CIT (Appeals) confirming the addition made on account of penny stock transaction of Rs. 3,33,411/- without consideration of evidences filed is totally incorrect and illegal and thus the impugned addition made of Rs. 3,33,411/- deserves to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see on 07.05.2019. The assessee filed return of income on 29.04.2019 declaring total income of Rs. 1,99,700/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee has not complied with the show cause notice by 04.11.2019, therefore, it was stated that the assessee had no explanation to offer. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,33,411/- in respect of the said transaction. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee through its letter to the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has requested to provide name of the Broker to which the transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared as Penny Stock or was not blacklisted by SEBI during the transaction period. The Ld. AR submitted that all the details which were available with the assessee was filed during the assessment proceedings as well as before the CIT(A) but both the Authorities ignored the same. 6. The Ld. DR submitted that since the assessee has not properly responded before the Revenue Authorities as well as before the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that from the Assessment Order the Assessing Officer has not categorically mentioned as to ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
