RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGHANIA HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 44(2), KOLKATA

आयकर \ �Ȣ�ȣ��\ͬ ����, कोलकाता पीठ “एसएमसी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH: KOLKATA Į Ȣ राजेश�Ǖ�ȡ����ȯ�ȡ�  �è���ȯ�  �¢ [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No.866/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Singhania HUF Vs. ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata

(PAN: AAFHS 2065 E) ( \ �Ȣ�ȡ�ȸ ) Respondent / Ĥ×��ȸ Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 09.07.2026 �ȧ�Ǔ�ͬ � Date of Pronouncement/ 21.07.2026 ] �ȯ��` ɮ�Ȫ��ȡ��ȧ�Ǔ�ͬ � For the Appellant/ Smt. Sweta Singhania, FCA Ǔ��ȡ[ǐ��Ȣ �ȧ�j ��  ȯ For the Respondent/ Smt. Pampa Ray, Sr. DR �ȡ�è���ȧ�j ��  ȯ��

ORDER / आदेश

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 15.01.2026 for the AY 2016-17. 2. Issue raised in ground no. 1 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 20,00,990/- as made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act by treating the long term capital gain arising from sale of shares of Appu Marketing and Manufacturing Ltd. as unexplained cash credit. Besides the assessee assailed the addition of ₹ 1,00,050/- made by the AO

2 I.T.A. No.866/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Singhania HUF u/s 69C of the Act in respect of commission @ 5% which was also upheld by the ld. CIT(A).

3 I.T.A. No.866/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Singhania HUF The ld. counsel of the assessee vehemently submitted that the assessee has genuinely traded in the said share through registered broker and all the evidences of purchase and sales , payments proofs through bank and D-mat etc were furnished before both the authorities. The ld. AR submitted that the the AO mainly harped on the investigation report of the Investigation Wing and has not done any enquiry himself into the evidences filed by the assessee. The ld. AR argued that the addition can not be made on the basis of investigation report unless the AO has done any enquiry himself as to how the accommodation was received by the assessee. The Ld. AR also submitted that the issue is squarely covered by a series of decisions of the coordinate benches s under:

a. Ashwin Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), Cuttack in ITA NO. 507/CTK/2024 for AY 2016-17. b. Sangita Ben Mardia Vs ITO ITA No.853 & 854/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17.

4 I.T.A. No.866/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Singhania HUF “8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. As from the facts emerges of the present case, it is not a solitary transaction carried out by the assessee of purchase and sale of share of a company from which it had earned any unreasonable or excessive profits. From the history of the assessee’scase it appears that the assessee is regularly transacted in shares and regularly declaring income on account of long term capital gain and short term capital gain from the sale of shares in preceding years also. In preceding years the department had also alleged that the assessee is engaged in obtaining bogus LTCG by sale of shares of various different company, however, such allegation was found incorrect by this Bench of the Tribunal and when a question was raised by the Bench before the ld. AR as to whether such orders of the ITAT were challenged by the revenue before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, it was replied by the ld. AR that the department has not preferred any further appeal against such orders, thus, the said order of this Bench of the Tribunal became final. 9. Coming to the present year, we find that the assessee has discharged its burden of establishing that the shares were purchased by it by making payments through banking channels and necessary evidences of purchase bills and demat account where the shares was credited to the account of the assessee, were duly filed. Further the assessee has filedthe contract notes of the stock exchange when the shares were sold after holding them for a period of more than one year and due STT was paid at the time of making sales and consideration was also received through banking channel. All these evidences have not been controveted by the lower authorities, who simply proceeded on whims and fancies and neither any contrary material nor any investigation was carried out or other material was brought on record by making independent enquiries to hold that the assessee has obtained any bogus LTCG from the sale of shares. 10. With regard to the order of SEBI levying penalty in the case of M/s Appu Marketing Manufacturing Ltd. (now known as Ejecta Marketing Limited), it is seen that nowhere in that order it was alleged by the SEBI that the company was engaged in such kind of activity of manipulating its shares to facilate anybody in making long term capital gain. The penalty was levied for unfair trade practice of reversal trades involved in squaring off transaction. This has no relationship with the transaction of purchases and sales carried out by the assessee in the shares of M/s Appu Marketing Manufacturing Ltd. (now known as Ejecta Marketing Limited). Moreover, nowhere in the assessment order it has been alleged by the AO that the trading done by the assessee was in illiquid stock option at BSE nor the assessee was ever been confronted by the SEBI with regard to the said transaction of purchase and sales of shares. From the perusal of bills and contract notes submitted before us, we find that the shares were sold on different dates in different quantities in the stock exchangeand none of the transaction was in the nature of reversal trade of squaring off transaction with significant difference in the sales value and buy value of the transactions. We are also live to the issue that in the case of the assessee himself in the preceding assessment years this Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.05.2022 in ITA No.303/CTK/2019 (AY: 2015-2016) and ITA No.31/CTK/2020 (AY: 2014-2015) and in CO No.04/CTK/2020) (AY : 2014-2015) has held that the transaction of capital gains earned from the shares and claimed as exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act is genuine transaction. The relevant observations of this Bench in the aforesaid case as contained in para 8 of the order are reproduced herein below :- 8. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order in the present case clearly shows that there was a survey in the business premises of M/s. Sonthalia Rice Mills Group and the assessees herein are partners in the said Group. In the course of survey, statements have been recorded in respect of share transactions of KAFL as also IPO in respect of GCM Securities. Copy of the statement was attached with the grounds of appeal filed by the revenue, wherein, in reply to Q. No.12, Shri Ashwin Agarwal has categorically stated that the transaction is not bogus capital gains and he has made profit from the trading of shares, which he also disclosed in the return of income. A perusal of the assessment further shows that though there is partial reference to the statement recorded in the course of survey, the substantial portion of the reasoning for the addition, mostspecifically, denial of exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act are the statements recorded by the Investigation Wing from the shares brokers and entry operators. Admittedly, the statement has not been given to the assessee for cross examination. Though the revenue has taken the stand that the cross examination could not be given to the assessee, we are unable to agree with the same in so far as if any evidence, in any manner, is to be used against the assessee in the course of an assessment of an assessee, such evidence shall be

5 I.T.A. No.866/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Singhania HUF put to the assessee for his rebuttal and if necessary the cross examination. This is the basic principle of natural justice. Just because an assessee, in the course of statement recorded, agreed to offer income which is otherwise eligible for exemption, it does not mean that the assessee can be compelled to withdraw his claim of exemption or be denied his rightful claim of exemption. An exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act is eligible to an assessee if the criterion required for such exemption is met by the transaction which has resulted income in the hands of the assessee. This cannot be denied to an assessee justbecause he has not claimed it nor just because agreed not to claim it. An exemption otherwise is allowable to the assessee cannot be even surrendered by an assessee. What is due to the assessee, it is the duty of the Income Tax Officer to grant to the assessee. An Income Tax Officer is not just revenue collector, he is known as Assessing Officer. He is to accesses the correct income and brings to tax the correct income. It is his duty of assessing the correct income after granting the benefit due to an assessee. For repetition sake, the Income Tax Officer is known as Assessing Authority not a Taxing Authority. 11. Further the observation of the revenue that the assessee has failed to establish the source of contribution made in the capital of partnership firm has also been dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of partnership firm M/s Sonthalia Rice Mills, where this Bench of the Tribunal was of the opinion that no addition could be made in the hands of the firm as the firm has discharged its burden to prove the genuineness of the credits in its hands and since in the case of assessee no addition was made on this score it could not be held that the assessee has made investment in the partnership firm out of his undisclosed sources. Thus, this argument of the department that the assessee has introduced his undisclosed income in the firm as capital contribution in the grab of bogus LTCG also hold no water. 12. Further the issue of genuineness of LTCG has already been decided in favor of assessee with by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT-1 Vs. Smt. Bimala Devi Singhania, passed in ITA Nos.84&85 of 2022, dated 10.10.2023, wherein the Hon’ble High Court after considering all the judgments on this issue, has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court as contained in para 6 to 15 are reproduced hereunder:- 6. On the basis of the pleadings available on record and also the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court, vide order dated 13.09.2023, framed the substantial questions of law to the following effect:- "I) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly accepted the claim of the assessee as per law regarding exemption under Section 10 (38) with respect to alleged income under the head "Long Term Capital Gain" on sale of shares of penny stock by ignoring the admission by their group before the Income Tax Authority that complete tax would be paid on the bogus LTCG claimed by the group subsequent to survey operation under Section 133A? II) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal of the revenue with the observation that as the sale of shares were effected through recognized stock exchange and STT had been paid at the time of transfer, therefore it cannot be held as bogus?" 7. Before delving into the issues in question, the provisions contained 1 under Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are extracted hereunder:- "Any income arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset, being an equity share in a company or a unit of an equity oriented fund for a unit of a business trust where- (a) the transaction of sale of such equity share or unit is entered into on or after the date on which Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 comes into force; and (b) such transaction is chargeable to securities transaction tax under that Chapter; [Provided that the income by way of long term capital gain of a company shall be taken into account in computing the book profit and income tax payable under section 115 JB;) [Provided also that nothing contained in sub-clause(b) shall apply to a transaction undertaken on a recognized stock exchange located in any International Financial Services Centre and where the consideration for such transaction is paid or payable in foreign currency, [Provided also that nothing contained in this clause shall apply to any income arising from the transfer of a long term capital asset, being an equity share in a company, if the transaction of acquisition, other than the acquisition notified by the Central Government in this behalf, of such equity share is entered into on or after the 1st day of October, 2004 and such transaction is not chargeable to securities transaction tax under Chapter VII of the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 (23 of 2004)" 8. On bare perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is made clear that for claiming the benefit of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 three requirements need to be fulfilled. Firstly, the share should be held for more than one year, secondly, it should be listed and sold on recognized stock exchange and, thirdly, on the said sale necessary Security Transaction +(STT) has to be chargeable If all these requirements are satisfied, then the benefit of exemption under Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is admissible.

6 I.T.A. No.866/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Singhania HUF S9. In Bhoruka Engineering Industries Ltd. (supra), the Karnataka Karnataka High Court has also laid down the above mentioned principles. Therefore, applying the provisions contained under Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also the law laid down by the High Court of Karnataka mentioned supra, all the above noted three elements are existing in the present case and, thereby, the respondent-assessee is entitled to get the benefit under Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As such, a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 20.08.2015 and, without detecting any incriminating documents or evidence against the respondent-assessee, recorded the statement that tax will be paid on the claim made under Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in filing the IT return for the Assessment Year 2013-14 and to be to be disclosed as income from other source. But the said statement, being without any incriminating evidence against the respondent-assessee, cannot be ipso facto decided against the respondent-assessee. The present income tax appeal filed at the instance of the revenue involved no substantial question of law, as both the appellate authorities have decided on the basis of evidence and documents produced by the respondent-assessee and the revenue and, as such, on the basis of the facts, both the authorities have come to a conclusion that the respondent-assessee is entitled to the benefit under Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and held that the appellant revenue had failed to bring any evidence in rebuttal nor was it proved that the documents produced were false, fabricated or fictitious, hence, the findings, as recorded by the appellate authorities, that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares could not be treated as non-genuine, were essentially in the realm of appreciation of evidence and, as such, no substantial question of law is involved. 10. In Vijaya Kumar Talwar (supra), it has been held that in absence of demonstrated perversity in the finding of the Tribunal, interference cannot be warranted, when on thorough consideration of the material on record it was found that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares could not be treated as non-genuine. 11. In Khader Khan Son (supra), the apex Court held that statement recorded during survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has no evidentiary value, as it does not 15 ITA No.507/CTK/2024 empower any Income Tax Officer to examine on oath, as the assessment has to be made on the basis of materials and documentary evidence and not on a bare statement. Therefore, the substantial questions of law, as formulated, have no legs to stand. 12. It is worthwhile to mention here that, the Security Transaction Tax (STT) under Chapter-VII of Finance (No.2) Act, 2004 is a direct tax levied by Government of India on every purchase and sale of Hon ever recognized securities that are listed on the stock exchanges in India. The STT was implemented to curb the tax avoidance on capital gains, which is similar to Tax Collected at Source (TCS) to be collected by a recognized stock exchange and both the buyer and seller will pay the said tax, prescribed at for as carrying out the transaction of securities for financial gains, are liable to pay STT. All gains from such transactions are called capital gains and are classified as LTCG or STCG, depending on the holding period. Therefore, the alleged substantial questions of law as proposed by the Revenue cannot be sustained in the eye of law, as the same is contrary to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 10 (38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Circular No.5/2005 dated 15.07.2005). 13. Mr. T.K. Satapathy, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Income Tax Department laid emphasis on the CBDT Circular No.23 of 2019 dated 06.09.2019, as the matter related to bogus Long Term Capital Gain on stock. But the said circular can only be applied prospectively not retrospectively, because the present appeal is for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Thereby, the circular relied upon by the Senior Counsel appearing for the revenue has no application to the present case. 14. In view of the facts and circumstances, as well as the law, as discussed above, even though substantial questions of law have been framed vide order dated 13.09.2023, the same are not required to be answered. As such, CIT (A) and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, being the fact finding courts, relying upon the evidences available on record, having passed the orders impugned, there is no necessity of answering the substantial questions of law framed for adjudication. 15. Thus, both the appeals, being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 13. Further in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Kuntala Mohapatra (supra), the Hon’ble High Court has confirmed the order of the Tribunal by observing as under:- 3.The impugned order of the ITAT has sufficiently dealt with the factual details concerning the Respondent- Assessee. The question was regarding the claim of long-term capital gains on shares in terms of Section 10(38) of the Act. During the course of scrutiny 16 ITA No.507/CTK/2024 assessment, a revised return was filed by the Assessee claiming the above exemption. After the AO rejected the plea, the Assessee went before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was satisfied that the purchase of liquid shares have been made through Account Payee Cheques and the shares themselves were held in Demat Account for more than 12 months and then sold through the

7 I.T.A. No.866/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Singhania HUF recognized stock exchange after payment of security transaction tax A reference was made to the CBDT circular which debarred the Revenue from obtaining admissions/statements during the course of a survey. The ITAT also noted the settled position in law that if an Assessee has wrongly offered an item of income or omitted to make a claim of deduction in the return, he was entitled to correct such request to the AO to that effect a mistake by making a 4. Another ground on which the ITAT found fault with the additions made by the AO was that reliance was placed on statement of 'so called entry operator' to justify the additions under Sections 68 and 69 of the IT Act. These statements were recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not connected with the Assessee. Further, the statements were recorded much before the date of the survey conducted on the Assessee. It was unable to be disputed by the Department that the Assessee did not have an opportunity to challenge such statements and further, no opportunity to cross- examine the so-called entry providers was given to the Assessee. 5. Having heard learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Department (Appellant) and having perused the impugned orders of the AO, CIT(A) and the ITAT, the Court finds that both the grounds viz., the claim for benefit of Section 10(38) of the Act and denial of an opportunity to cross examine the entry providers, turned on facts. The ITAT was justified in accepting the plea of the Assessee that the failure to adhere the principles of natural justice went to the root of the matter. Also, the CBDT circular that permitted to the Assessee to file revised returns if he omitted to make a claim was also not noticed by the AO. 6. In the considered view the Court, the ITAT committed no error in concurring with the view of the CIT(A) and in dismissing the with the Revenue's appeal. No substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the ITAT that calls for interference by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 14. The above order of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Kuntala Mohapatra, stood confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP (Civil) Diary No(s).5269/2024, vide order dated 04.03.2024 by dismissing the SLP filed by the revenue. 15. Recently, the Hon’ble Mumbai Bench of this tribunal in the case of Ramesh Rikhavdasdas Shah, HUF in ITA No 3545/Mum/23 and 3546/Mum/23 vide an order dated 25.07.2024 has decided the issue in favor of the assessee. The observation of Hon’ble Bench is as under:-8.We heard the parties and perused the record. We notice that the assessing officer has primarily placed reliance on the report given by the Investigation wing of the Income tax department, Kolkata in order to arrive at the conclusion that the long term capital gains reported by the assessee in both the years is bogus in nature. We notice that the investigation report prepared by Investigation wing, Kolkatta is a generalized report with regard to the modus operandi adopted in manipulation of prices of certain shares and generation of bogus capital gains. We notice that the AO has placed reliance on the said report without bringing any material on record to show that the transactions entered by the assessee were found to be a part of manipulated transactions, i.e., it was not proved that the assessee has carried out the transactions of purchase and sale of shares in connivance with the people who were involved in the alleged rigging of prices. The Ld A.R submitted that the transactions carried on by the assessee were not subjected to scrutiny by SEBI at all. 9. We notice that the assessee has purchased the shares from Stock exchange platform and also sold the shares in the stock exchange platform. Both the transactions have been carried out at the prevailing market rates only. The assessee has furnished evidences to prove the factum of purchase and sale of shares. The financial transactions have also been carried out through banking channels. The shares have entered into and exited from Demat account of the assessee. We notice that the AO did not find any fault with the documents so furnished by the assessee. Under these set of facts, we are of the view that the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indravadan Jain (HUF) (supra) will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In the above said case, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court held as under:- “….The CIT(A) came to the conclusion that respondent bought 3000 shares of RFL, on the floor of Kolkata Stock Exchange through registered share broker. In pursuance of purchase of shares the said broker had raised invoice and purchase price was paid by cheque and respondent’s bank account has been debited. The shares were also transferred into respondent‟s Demat account where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one year the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the Kolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had also issued contract notes cum bill for sale and these contract notes and bills were made available during the course of appellate proceedings. On the sale of shares respondent effected delivery of shares by way of Demat instruction slips and also received payment from Kolkata Stock Exchage. The cheque received was deposited in respondent’s bank account. In view thereof, the

8 I.T.A. No.866/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Singhania HUF CIT(A) found there was no reason to add the capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore, in our view, rightly concluded that there was no merit in the appeal.” Accordingly, we are of the view that there is no reason to suspect the transactions of purchase and sale of shares of above said company declared by the assessee in both the years under consideration. Accordingly, the estimated commission expenses added by the AO to the total income of both the years are also liable to be deleted. 10. Accordingly, we set aside the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in both the years on the above said two issues and direct the AO to delete the addition of sale consideration of shares and also estimated commission expenses made by him in both the years. 11. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.” 16. In view of the above facts and after considering the decisions of this Bench of the Tribunal and the judgments of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, referred to above, we find that in the present case the assessee has established the genuineness of the transaction by placing on record all the plausible evidence in the shape of purchase bills and sales bills, demat account statement etc. which remained uncontroverted. Moreover, no material was brought on record by the revenue to hold that such transaction of sale of shares is bogus and merely by relying upon the judgment of the SEBI delivered in some other context, it was alleged that the transaction of the sale of shares in the company M/s. Appu Marketing Manufacturing Ltd. (now known as Ejecta Marketing Ltd. is a bogus transaction, cannot be accepted. The exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act is available to an assessee if all the conditions as provided are meet out. As observed above, all such criteria are fully satisfied by the assessee and due STT was also paid at the time of sale of shares. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the transaction of sale of shares of M/s. Appu Marketing Manufacturing Ltd. (now known as Ejecta Marketing Ltd.), cannot be held as a bogus transaction and the LTCG earned out of the sale of shares of this company amounting to Rs.65,55,972/- is held as ITA No.507/CTK/2024 19 genuine LTCG earned by the assessee from a genuine transaction. Once the transaction is held as genuine transaction and the LTCG earned out of such transaction is held as genuine and assessee also fulfilled all the criteria to claim exemption u/s.10(38) of the Act, therefore, we allow the exemption on such LTCG u/s.10(38) of the Act. In view of the above discussion, the addition of Rs.65,55,972/- as upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. Thus, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 6. Similarly the case is squarely covered by the decision of Sangita Ben Mardia Vs ITO ITA No.853 & 854/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 wherein the same crip was involved and the coordinate bench has allowed the appeals of the assessee by observing and holding as under: “5. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. No doubt, the assessee had purchased 50000 shares of Appu Marketing/Ejecta on 05.10.2013 through proper banking channel. However, the shares have got credited to assessee’s Demat account on 25.10.2013. It is further relevant to observe, the shares of the aforesaid company were listed in BSE and transaction in the shares taken place through BSE. The materials on record reveal that out of 50000 shares of the company purchased by the assessee in 2013, 10200 shares were sold in A.Y. 2015-16, 23200 shares were sold in A.Y. 2016-17, 3000 shares were sold in A.Y. 2016-17 and 8100 shares were sold in A.Y. 2018-19. Thus, by the end of the A.Y. 2019-20, the assessee had sold 44500 shares. Even as on date, the assessee is still holding 5500 shares of the company. These facts clearly reveal that the assessee had purchased the shares of the M/s Appu Marketing/ Ejecta as a genuine investor and not to avail accommodation entry to claim exempt LTCG. Had it been the case that the assessee had indulged in share transaction as a tool to convert her unaccounted money to accounted money and bring it to main stream, she should not have held on to some of the shares even till today. Pertinently, the assessee had effected sale of shares through registered stock broker M/s Allvin Securities Ltd. and copies of contract

9 I.T.A. No.866/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Singhania HUF notes are available on record. No independent enquiry has been conducted by the AO to establish that the persons to whom the assessee had sold shares are essentially exit providers.” Considering the facts of the assessee in the light of above decisions of the coordinate benches , we are of the considered view that the additions made by the AO and as sustained by the ld. CIT(A) are wrong and can not be sustained. Consequently we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the additions of ₹ 20,00,050/- and ₹ 1,00,050/-. The ground no 1 and 2 are allowed.

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Rajendra Kumar Singhania HUF, 92/1B, Moulana Abul Kalam Azad Sarani, Rukmani Parasmani, Flat No. 6PE, Kadapara, Kolkata-700054. 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-44(2), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata