Income Tax vs. M/S Balmukund Dhanraj Jhawar Huf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH ON THE 30th OF APRIL, 2024 INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 56 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN CGO COMPLEX OPP. WHITE CHURCH (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI NILESH JAIN (HUF) 131, BAIKUNTHDAM COLONY, BEHIND ANAND BAZAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL WITH SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R-1]) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 58 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN CGO COMPLEX OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI AYUSH JAIN, 132, BAIKUNTHDHAM COLONY, BEHIND ANAND BAZAR, INDORE MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT 1 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified (SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 64 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI PRITESH JAIN (HUF) 130, BAIKUNTHDHAM COLONY, BEHIND ANAND BAZAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 65 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI PRITESH JAIN (HUF) 130, BAIKUNTHDHAM COLONY, BEHIND ANAND BAZAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (SHRI MANOJ MUNSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 88 of 2021 2 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND M/S VIJAYSHRI PACKAGING LIMITED, 34-C/2, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, LAXMI BAI NAGAR INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (NONE) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 95 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI MANOJ YADAV, GF-SHEKHAR RESIDENCY, 2ND FLOOR, FLAT NO. 204, SCHEME NO. 54, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (NONE) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 96 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN CGO COMPLEX OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER 3 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI PRAKASH JAVIA, 40 ASHOK NAGAR BEHIND ICICI BANK, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (SHRI ADITYA GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 98 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) I AAYKAR BHAWAN CGO COMPLEX OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI MOHANLAL KHANDELWAL, 659, SHEH NAGAR NEW ILVA COLLEGE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENT (SHRI ADITYA GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 99 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) I AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND RUKMANI KHANDELWAL, 659, SHEH NAGAR NEW ILVA COLLEGE, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS 4 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 100 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) I AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SMT. SANDHYA KHANDELWAL, 659, SHEH NAGAR NEW ILVA COLLEGE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 102 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI RADHESHYAM KHANDELWAL 659, SNEH NAGAR, NEW ILVA COLLEGE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 103 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 5 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI SURESH KHANDELWAL 659, SHEH NAGAR, NEW ILVA COLLEGE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 109 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SMT. SARITA BAGDI, 30, SHARDHANAND MARG, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, SLEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 110 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND 6 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified SMT. MAMTA NYATI, 5, NYATI HOUSE, MANDI ROAD, DHAMNOD, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 111 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND KUMARI AYUSHI NYATI 101, BALAJI VIHAR, PLOT NO. 1-2, MAA DURGA NAGAR, NAVLAKHA MAIN ROAD 1 TO 7 (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 112 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR RADHESHYAM, NYATI HUF 5, NYATI HOUSE, MANDI ROAD, DHAMNOD, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. 7 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 113 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SMT. VIJAYA NYATI, 5, NYATI HOUSE, MANDI ROAD, DHAMNOD, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 114 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI MANISH KUMAR RADHESHYAM NYATI (HUF) 5, NYATI HOUSE, MANDI ROAD, DHAMNOD, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 115 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) 8 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SMT. RITU MITTAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 35, MANGALDEEP, ADARSH COLONY, BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (NONE) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 116 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, CGO COMPLEX, OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDROE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SMT. NEELAM MITTAL 35, MANGALDEEP, ADARSH COLONY, BURHANPUR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (NONE) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 120 of 2021 BETWEEN:- THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPP. WHIT CHURCH ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI PRAKSH JAVIA HUF 40, ASHOK NAGAR BEHIND ICICI BANK, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) 9 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ADITYA GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 27 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I AAYKAR BHAWAN, NEAR WHITE CHURCH, INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI DARSHAN KUMAR PAHWA, 103, MISHIKA TOWER 28, PATEL NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (NONE) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 28 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, NEAR WHITE CHURCH INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI SAPAN SHAH, SHAH MARKETING, 25-26, ELECTRONIC COMPLEX PARDESHIPURA INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (NONE) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 29 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AAYKAR 10 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified BHAWAN, NEAR WHITE CHURCH INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SMT. INDIRA BOHRA C/O M/S B.L. GUPTA AND CO. 13/1 DHANWANTARI MARG FREEGANJ UJJAIN (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (NONE) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 31 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AAYAKAR BHAWAN NEAR WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND M/S AJAY KUMAR BALMUKUND JHAWAR HUF 04, JAWAHAR GANJ, SENDHWA, DISTRICT BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 32 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AAYAKAR BHAWAN NEAR WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND 11 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified M/S BALMUKUND DHANRAJ JHAWAR HUF 04 JAWAHAR GANJ, SENDHWA, DISTRICT BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 33 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 COMMISSIONER AAYAKAR BHAWAN, NEAR WHITE CHOURCH INDORE. (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SMT. APARNA JHAWAR 04 JAWAHAR GANJ, SANDHWA DISTRICT BADWANI (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 34 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, NEAR WHITE CHURCH INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI ANKIT GUPTA 262, INDRAPURI COLONY INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (NONE) 12 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 35 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AAYAKAR BHAWAN NEAR WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND MANISH GOVIND AGRAWAL HUF 482, GOYAL NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (NONE) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 36 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 AAYKAR BHAWAN NEAR WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND GOVIND HARINARAYAN AGRAWAL HUF 482 GOYAL NAGAR INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (NONE) INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 121 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN, NEAR WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER 13 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND ANIRUDDHA NYATI 102, BALAJI VIHAR, MAA DURGA NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 122 of 2022 BETWEEN:- THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 AAYKAR BHAWAN NEAR WHITE CHURCH, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND ANIRUDDHA NYATI, 102 BALAJI VIHAR, MAA DURGA NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS (SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT [R- 1]. INCOME TAX APPEAL No. 183 of 2023 BETWEEN:- THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I AAYKAR BHAWAN WHITE CHURCH ROAD INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....PETITIONER (MS. VEENA MANDLIK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER) AND SHRI AMANDEEP SINGH BHATIA 8/5 BCC HOUSE MANORAMAGANJ INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) .....RESPONDENTS 14 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified (NONE) This appeal coming on for admisison this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari passed the following: ORDER Heard on I.A. No.6928/2022(in ITA No.121/2022), I.A. No.6927/2022(in ITA No.122/2022) and I.A. No.1750/2024(in ITA No.183/2023) for condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed. Delay in filing the appeals are hereby condoned. Also heard on the question of admisison. This order shall govern the disposal of aforesaid ITA Nos. 56/2021, 58/2021, 64/2021, 65/2021, 88/2021, 95/2021, 96/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 100/2021, 102/2021, 103/2021, 109/2021, 110/2021, 111/2021, 112/2021, 113/2021, 114/2021, 115/2021, 116/2021, 120/2021, 27/2022, 28/2022, 29/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 121/2022, 122/2022 and 183/2023. 2. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in all the aforesaid 33 bunch of appeals, they have been heard analogously and disposed of by this common order as identical substantial questions of law are involved and have been framed by the appellant(s). 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of ITA No.56/2021 are being taken. 4. This is an appeal filed by the appellant(s) under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961') being aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2021, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Bench Indore in ITA No.294/Ind/2020 (Assessee's Appeal) 15 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The appellant has propsoed the following Substantial Question of Law in this appeal: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstnaces of the case and in law the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made by AO, which was confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax(CIT)(Appeals), ignoring the findings of Investigation Wing, Kolkata that M/s Sunrise Asian Limited was clearly established as a bogus penny stock script company which was used for claiming bogus Long Term Capital Gainn as exempted under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?" 5. In short, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether this appeal involves any substantial question of law, as is required to be made out under Section 260A of the Act of 1961, that being the prerequisite of admission of the appeal. 6. The brief facts of the case are that respondent had purchased shares on private placement from M/s. Santoshi Maa Lease and Finance and Investment Pvt. Ltd. after due diligence and following sequence of events which has been narrated by learned ITAT in para 16 of the order. This company later was amalgamated with M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited, a listed company on Bombay Stock Exchange under an order passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court. 7. That, soon after amalgmation, there was sudden jump in the share price on the Stock Exchange due to involvement of speculators and players of stock exchange. Learned ITAT has admitted that respondent was not involved in manipulating the prices of the shares on stock market and it was only one time investment made by the Respondent of small amount. 8. That, the SEBI, all allegation of insider trading and rigging of the prices on Stock Exchange, investigated and in its report dated 06/09/2021 which was in respect of Sunrise Asian Ltd. found that the promoters and 89 other 16 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified persons/companies were involved in rigging of share prices on Stock Exchange. It is submitted that the respondent is not named in the said list. Thus, it is evident that the respondent had no role and control over manipulation of share price of Bombay Stock Exchange. When SEBI did not find the involvement of the respondent in manipulation of share prices, therefore, the Assessing Officer erred in law and fact in making the addition of LTCG as undisclosed income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. It is further submitted that, no player can manipulate the price of share on Bombay Stock Exchange over 5% in a day as in case the price of share goes up in any day over 5% then Stock Exchange Circuit applies and which do not allow the increase in price of share more than 5% in a day. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants(Revenue) contended that the learned ITAT has ignored the findings of Investigation Wing, Kolkata that M/s Sunrise Asian Limited, without bringing on record, the report of investigation. The report is not in respect of the respondent, the same cannot bind the respondent. The learned ITAT, in absence of any coroborative evidence is not bound to blindly accept such report. She further contended that the investigation has gathered sufficient material and that the learned ITAT failed to consider that the abnormal increase in price of shares of M/s. Sunsrise Asian Ltd. were not comensutrate with the financial strength of the company. Further, investigation Wing has gathered sufficiet material before concluding that the alleged transaction is a sham transaction and has been carried out accross the country through various brokers. Abnormal increase in price of shares of M/s. Sunsrise Asian Ltd. were not comensutrate with the financial strength of the company. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on various judgments in support of her contention (i) Suman Poddar V/s Income Tax Officer(2019) 17 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified 112 taxmann.com 330(SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali(2014) 50 taxmann.com 47(Gauhati). 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer by referring to the decision given in the case of Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan & Ors. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(2)(ITA No.7648/Mum/2019 dated 11.08.2020). M/s Sunrise Asian Limited is not found to be a penny stock company and not holding an alleged transaction with the assessee while it was evidently proved that M/s Sunrise Asian Limited is a shell company and permit its beneficiaries to get an alleged accomodation entry in its books. The ITAT erred in not appreciating the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014) taxman.com 47(gauhati) as well as other case laws as mentioned in the Order of First Appellate Authority while its judgment is strictly applicable in the instant case. The ITAT erred in not relying the case law of Suman Poddar Vs. ITO (2019) 112 taxmann.com 330(SC) and allowed the appeals by mentioning that lower authorities are not able to sustain the addition without any cogent material on record while sufficient justification accompanied by relevant evicdences were given to prove that M/s Sunrise Asian Limited is nothing but penny stock company. 11. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent(s)(Assessee) submitted that under Section 10(38) the respondent has lawfully claimed exemption by complying the conditions to avail exemption which includes share should be listed on Stock Exchange, Share should have been purchased through Stock Exchange and through Banking Channel and Security Transaction Tax(STT) has been paid thereon. The shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd. 18 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified are listed on Bombay Stock Exchange, shares have been purchased through D- mat Account and payment have been received through Banking Channel and Security Transaction Tax has been paid by Stock Exchange. Thus, all the conditions for availing exemption have been fulfilled. It is further contended that under Income Tax Act there is no provision which requires the Assessing Officer to investigate the genuiness of the shares because these share are listed, issued by the Company and records are maintained with the Register of Companies. Thus, these shares cannot be said to be bogus shares as have been issues and subscribed under the Companies Act. The revenue has failed to appreciate that how these shares can be termed as Bogus Shares, when these shares have been issued by the Company incoporated under the Companies Act by following the provisions and procedures prescribed under the Companies Act, 1956. The issuing company has complied with all the rules and regulations and completed all statutory formalities required for issue of shares. Thus, under such circumstances, these shares cannot be termed as Bogus Shares. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that mere sudden increase in share prices on the stock exchange, does not ipso facto determine that shares are bogus, if the shares are bogus, then these shares cannot be listed and traded on stock exchange through D-MAT accounts. Therefore, it is incorrect notion of the Revenue that these shares are bogus shares, on the contrary these shares are genuine and lawfully issued share by the company by following the law and procedure in this regard. The Assessing Officer has heavily relied upon report of Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department which was conducted in Kolkata in case of some of the Companies including M/s. Sunrise Asian Limited. This report has never been provided to 19 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified the respondent at any stage of the proceedings nor filed by the department before ITAT or before this Court. It is settled law that no material can be used against the assessee without providing the assessee to examine it and, if required, to cross examine. Thus, there was violation of principles of natural justice. That on similar set of facts and in respect of the same share script of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. the Mumbai Bench of ITAT in case of (1) Narayan Ramchandra Rathi(Page nos.50 to 61), (2) Dipesh Ranmeshchandra Vardhan(Page nos. 62 to 71) and, (3) Anraj Hiralal Shah(page nos.72 to 74) has dealt with the identical issue and decided in favour of the assessees. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that as many as three High Courts i.e. Delhi High Court, Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court also have dealt with the similar issues and has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The appellant(Revenue) had preferred SLP against an order of Gujarat High Court passed in the case of the Principal Commissinoer of Income Tax-1 Vs. Parasben Kasturchand Kochar, passed in R/TAX Appeal No.204 of 2020 decided on 17.09.2020), which has been dismissed in limine upholding the orders passed by the Gujarat High Court. The Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-12 Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi, passed in ITA No.125/2020 decided on 15.01.2021 has held that the High Court has erred by holding that the addition made under Section 68 of the Act by treating impugned Long term Capital Gain( LTCG) as bogus was unjustified and same was to be deleted. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT requiring consideration by this Court. There is no merit in the 20 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified (S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE appeal. Thus, in our considered opinion, the present appeal does not involve any substantial question of law so as to meet the provisions of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for admitting the appeal. 15. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in these bunch of appeals and, accordingly, they are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. 16. A copy of the order be kept in the record of connected ITA Nos.58/2021, 64/2021, 65/2021, 88/2021, 95/2021, 96/2021, 98/2021, 99/2021, 100/2021, 102/2021, 103/2021, 109/2021, 110/2021, 111/2021, 112/2021, 113/2021, 114/2021, 115/2021, 116/2021, 120/2021, 27/2022, 28/2022, 29/2022, 31/2022, 32/2022, 33/2022, 34/2022, 35/2022, 36/2022, 121/2022, 122/2022 and 183/2023.

pn 21 Signed by: PREETHA HARI NAIR Signing time: 03-05-2024 18:17:39 Signature Not Verified