DEO KISHAN MOHTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)., KOLKATA

ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM:

“1. For that the orders passed by the lower authorities are arbitrary, erroneous, without proper reasons, invalid and bad-in-law, to the extent to which they are prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.

2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the alleged grounds without properly considering all relevant documentary evidences submitted before the lower authorities in support of earning of Long Term Capital Gains.

3. For that the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated the facts on record which indicated that the appellant having filed all evidences relating to purchase and sale of shares and having earned Long Term Capital gains, the Ld. CIT (A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal on surmises and conjectures in view of the fact that the evidences adduced by the appellant in support of earning of Long Term Capital Gains have not been assailed or controverted.

5. For that the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the A.O. passed entirely an illegal order proceeding on the basis of statements of some persons without affording any opportunity to the appellant to cross examine them.

7. For that the use of statements of some persons without affording any opportunity to the appellant to cross examine is against the established law and hence the assessment framed by the A.0. ought to have been annulled by the Ld. CIT (A).

4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising 8 grounds of appeal. However, effective grounds for adjudication before us is regarding the order passed by ld. CIT(A) by sustaining the order of ld. AO by making an addition of Rs. 6,69,840/- in the hands of assessee in respect of profit earned from long term capital gain on trading of shares. The ld. AR in order to substantiate his claim before us he stated that view taken by the ld. AO is arbitrarily as well as contrary to the provisions of law. As all the alleged transactions are carried out by the assessee through banking transaction and recognized stock exchange. Moreover, all the shares were transferred by the assessee through D-mat account. In such scenario, the addition on the part of AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) only on the ground of mere statement of third party is not proper, therefore, the impugned order passed by ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set aside.

Deo Kishan Mohta 6. We after hearing the submission of the parties and on perusal of the material available on record. We notice that the assessee booked a profit of Rs. 6,69,840/- from the transaction of shares of M/s. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. and the alleged company from which assessee booked a profit from long term capital gain is also identified as one of the 84 BSE listed companies which are manipulated and used for providing bogus accommodation entries of long term capital gain and while dealing with the instant issue by the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the order passed by the ld. AO. We, therefore, going through the present facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by authorities below and following the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Jurisdiction High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj & Ors. (2022) 139 taxmann.com 352 (Cal) where the Hon’ble High Court has taken a view on same facts and circumstances of the case by sustaining the addition in the hands of assessee. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) by sustaining the order of ld. AO and following the decision rendered by Swati Bajaj (supra) and dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee.