9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, but no such evidence was supplied to assessee for cross verification. The certificate from Banas Finance Ltd is duly annexed by the assessee where it is clearly mentioned that the share was issued in the name of HUF and not to an individual. There is no reflection in bank account or in the account statement that the assessee has made the transactions. The Ld.AO was not able to specify the documents / evidence that the assessee had made the transaction and the demat account which is filed by the assessee before the Bench and the Revenue. There is no reflection of the shares in question. The assessee has taken this ground before the CIT(A) but CIT(A) had passed very cryptic order and without considering the submission of the assessee. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t issuing notices u/s 133(6) or 131. j. By ignoring the fact that purchase was by cheque and demat. k. Although the appellant is not liable to maintain books of accounts and therefore provisions of section 68 does not apply. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming the same there by not considering the written submissions and several judgments cited before him. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned A.O. erred in levying interest u/s 234A, B, C and D initiating penalty u/s 271[1][c]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee s case was reopened under section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice under section 148. The observa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thout any verification from his end. The Ld.AO duly relied on the observation of the Investigation Department only. No separate investigation was made. The Ld.AO referred that the verification was made from broker house, but no such evidence was supplied to assessee for cross verification. The certificate from Banas Finance Ltd is duly annexed by the assessee in APB pages 45 where it is clearly mentioned that the share was issued in the name of HUF and not to an individual. There is no reflection in bank account or in the account statement that the assessee has made the transactions. The Ld.AO was not able to specify the documents / evidence that the assessee had made the transaction and the demat account which is filed by the assessee befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration of Rs. 4183450/-w.r.t. share transactions of 1,40,000 shares added back to total income of the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the act. The mount of Rs. 4183450 u/s 68 is confirmed. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 4. The Ld.DR has not been able to submit any contrary facts before the bench. In our considered view, the reason recorded by the ld. AO itself is erroneous and perverse. The ld. AO had no jurisdiction for reopening the assessment U/s 148 of the Act. So, the recorded reason is baseless and liable to be quashed. We dismissed the appeal order and the addition amount to Rs. 41,83,450/- is deleted. The appeal of the assessee is succeeded. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
