DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 1 1, MUMBAI vs. INVENTURE GROWTH & SECURITIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

As the cases under consideration are having involved identical facts and circumstances and issues and therefore for the sake of brevity are heard together and disposed off by this Composite order by taking into consideration ITA No. 8168/Mum/2025, as the lead case as insisted and argued by the parties.

Coming to ITA No. 8167/Mum/2025, it is observed that there is delay of 26 days in filing of this appeal. Considering the reasons stated by the Revenue qua condonation of delay of 26 days occurred in filling the instant appeal, the delay is condoned.

Coming to merits of the case, it is observed that Assessing Officer vide order dated 09.03.2015 under Section 143(3), r.w.s. 153(A) of the Act, determined the total income of the Assessee at Rs. 7,81,86,150/-, as against declared by the Assessee to the tune of Rs. 7,76,42,610/- by filling its return of income on dated 29.09.2012.

Subsequently, the case of the Assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing a notice dated 27.03.2019 under Section 148 of the Act and accordingly vide assessment order dated 31.12.2019, the assessment of the Assessee was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s.

Before the Ld. Commissioner, the Assessee filed a following chart contending that it had traded only in six scrips out of seven scrips referred to by the AO.

The Ld. Commissioner, after considering the assessment order and the submissions of the Assessee, specifically noted that the Assessee had not earned any long-term capital gain on sale of any of the alleged scrips. On the contrary, the Assessee had incurred a business loss of Rs.4,276/- while trading in six scrips. The Ld. Commissioner ultimately directed the AO to delete the addition by observing and holding as under:

Thus, the Revenue being aggrieved by the aforesaid relief granted by the Ld. Commissioner, has filed the present appeal.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. As observed above, the Assessee had filed details of the scrips before the Ld. Commissioner and had also demonstrated that the transactions resulted only in a business loss of Rs.4,276/-. The Ld. Commissioner, after taking cognizance of the said facts, relevant documents and material available on record, further observed that the Assessee’s specific role in any alleged price rigging had not been established. The Ld. Commissioner also noted that the turnover of

Further, the AO had made addition of the entire turnover relating to sale of the alleged scrips by treating the same as bogus, whereas the Assessee had purchased and sold the scrips through the stock exchange. Therefore, on the basis of the material available on record, the Ld. Commissioner did not find merit in the conclusion drawn by the AO that the sale shown by the Assessee was bogus.

We find that the Ld. Commissioner has duly considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the claim of the Assessee regarding business loss of Rs.4,276/-, the documentary evidences available on record, the observations of the AO, and the fact that the specific role of the Assessee in alleged price rigging had not been established.

Thus, on the aforesaid analysis, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Ld. Commissioner is based on proper appreciation of facts, documents and material available on record and the issues involved have been adjudicated in their right perspective and proper manner. The order of the Ld. Commissioner neither suffers from any perversity, impropriety nor illegality warranting our interference. Accordingly, the same is upheld.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 8168/Mum/2025 is dismissed.

Coming to the other connected appeals, i.e. ITA Nos. 8167/Mum/2025 and 8169/Mum/2025, filed by the Revenue, since the facts, circumstances and issues involved therein are identical to those involved in ITA No. 8168/Mum/2025as observed above, thus our decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals also. Accordingly, these appeals filed by the Revenue are also dismissed.

Coming to the Cross Objections filed by the Assessee, it is observed that the Assessee has challenged the action of the Ld. Commissioner in upholding the reopening proceedings initiated by the AO under section 147 of the Act. However, since we have already upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner in deleting the substantive addition made by the AO, the Cross Objections filed by the Assessee have become infructuous and, therefore, the same are dismissed as infructuous.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by the Assessee are dismissed as infructuous.