9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 377X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation. The appellant has claimed that he has not made any investment in the above penny stock and he had undertaken only daily trading of very nominal amount and the profit earned thereon has been offered for tax. The appellant also submitted that he has also not earned any LTCG and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. After considering the facts of the case, as discussed above, we do not find any merit in the addition made by the AO because such conclusion is not based on any specific information and evidence in respect of the assessee. On the other hand, claim of the assessee has not been rebutted by the AO by bringing any positive evidence or information. Hence, the addition is not liable to be sustained. Assessee appeal allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Gain as above even after submission of documents relating to capital gain. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not considered the transaction as genuine not considered the documents submitted. The learned AO has not given any data relating to offline transaction in shares on which he has relied. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating penalty u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the income tax act, 1961. 6. Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). The CIT(A) at para 5.3, stated that appellant was provided many opportunities to explain nature and source of investments made for purchase of shares of the impugned penny stock namely, M/s Comfort Fincap Ltd. The appellant s claim that total value of purchase was only Rs. 63,239/- was not accepted by CIT(A). He stated that as per information from Investigation Wing, Kolkata, the total purchase value was Rs. 48,78,356/-. He confirmed the addition made by AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) has filed a paper book and enclosed submission made to the CIT(A). He submitted that the appellant had produced all information including Demat account, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same day. The AO as well as the CIT(A) have not given any reason as to why explanation of the assessee is not acceptable. They have relied on information from Investigation Wing, but the same has not been discussed in either of the orders. Content of the report of the Investigation Wing pertaining to the appellant has neither been discussed in the orders of lower authorities nor it was given to assessee for his rebuttal and explanation. The appellant has claimed that he has not made any investment in the above penny stock and he had undertaken only daily trading of very nominal amount and the profit earned thereon has been offered for tax. The appellant also submitted that he has also not earned any LTCG and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
