INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. TEJAS BHARATKUMAR SAGLANI, MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order dated
04.04.2025, passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula [hereinafter shall be referred as ‘the Ld.
CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12, raising following grounds:
1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of the Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,89,668/- overlooking the fact that the entire transactions were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to plough back its unaccounted income in the form of fic sale of penny
2. Whether on the Ld. CIT(A 2,89,668/- cla assessee's ca received from of the ben promoter/bro of Comfort Inf arisen on sale executed to o beneficiary af
3. *Whether o
Ld. CIT(A) ha exemption of assessee has arranged tra steps and la structured tra taxes ?"
4. ⁠4. Wheth law, Ld. CIT(A exemption of transactions assessee at underlying fra present these character and has been over
5. "Whether o the Ld. CIT(A) and circumst
Prasad More
Taxmann. 89
124(SC), rend
Hon'ble Court by applying circumstances
Officer?"
6. "Whether o the Ld. CIT(A Teja
ITA ctitious Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2, y stock scrip" M/s. Comfort inftech Ltd ?"
n the facts and circumstances of the case
A) has erred in deleting the disallow aimed as LTCG, without appreciating the ase was re-opened, on the basis of the m DGIT(Investigation), Mumbai that asses neficiaries of the scheme, which h kers/operators, all have in collusion rigge fotech Ltd." for commission and that the c e of this scrip was an arranged transact obtain accommodation entries of bogus fter routing unaccounted money?"
on the facts and circumstances of the case as erred in deleting the disallowance f LTCG, without appreciating the fac s entered into penny stock transaction, nsaction, which involve the series of p ack of commercial content and totally a ansaction entered into with the sole inte er on the facts and circumstances of the A) has erred in deleting the disallowance f LTCG without appreciating the na by accepting the documentation prese face value, without adequately cons audulent intent and the orchestrated ste e transactions as genuine. The assessmen d intent behind these transactions was rlooked?"
on the facts and circumstances of the case
) has erred in not considering the fact th tantial evidences in view of the decisio
(1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Day
9(SC) [1995] 2014 ITR 801 (SC)/ [199
dered by the Supreme Court, where it w t and Tribunal have to judge the eviden g the test of probabilities, the s which exercise had been done by th on the facts and circumstances of the case
(A) has erred in deleting the entire d as Bharatkumar Saglani
2
A No. 4312/MUM/2025
,89,668/- on e and in law, wance of Rs.
fact that the e information see was one hatched by ed the prices capital gains tion and was LTCG to the e and in law, claimed, as cts that the which was preconceived an artificially ent to evade e case and in e claimed, as ature of the ented by the sidering the eps taken to nt of the true s crucial and e and in law, hat the direct on of Durga yal [1995] 80
95] 125 CTR was held that nces before it surrounding he Assessing e and in law, disallowance claimed as ex cases, where on the asses also to prove claimed LTCG placed on jud the case of Pr
6 of 2022, Da
7. "Whether o
Ld. CIT(A) h exemption of similar issue
Manoj Jain (H stock transac and the sam
(2024) 164
confirmed by (c) of 21636/2
8. The tax eff below the p
F.No.279/Mis dated. 17.09
exceptions sp
Dated. 15.03
"Organized Ta of penny stoc merit without
2. Briefly stated, order passed u/s 14
short
‘the Act’),
Rs.2,89,668/- to the proceeds of shares indentified as a pen
Before the Assessing the assessee and t assessment as best ju
Teja
ITA xemption of LTCG, by ignoring the fact there was a suspicious or bogus trade, ssee to establish the genuineness of pri that the price of penny stock which w
G/STCG or loses was not manipulated. Th dgment of Hon'ble Culcutta High Court's r. CIT Vs Swati Bajaj (I. A. No. GA/2/2022
ated. 14.06.2022 ?"
on the facts and circumstances of the case has erred in deleting disallowance f LTCG, without appreciating the facts of LTCG, the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in HUF) in ITA No.1782/KOL/2018, treate ction as income from other sources inste me was upheld by the Hon'ble High Co taxmann.com 133 (Calcutta), which the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissin
2024 Dated. 20.09.2024?"
ffect involved in this case is Rs. 60,880
rescribed limit mentioned in the CBD sc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) amended vide No 9.2024 and this case also falls under pecified in the of the CBDT's Circular
3.2024, wherein it is stated that in cas ax Evasion" including cases of accommo cks, the decision to file appeal/SLP shall regard to the tax effect and the monetar facts of the case are that in 44 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-ta the Assessing
Officer mad total income of the assessee on of M/s Comfort Inftech Ltd.
nny stock, in terms of section Officer no compliance was mad therefore, the Assessing Offic udgment assessment.
as Bharatkumar Saglani
3
A No. 4312/MUM/2025
that in such , the onus is ice hike and as traded to he reliance is s decision in 2) in ITAT No e and in law, claimed, as that on the n the case of d the penny ead of LTCG, ourt Calcutta h has been ng SLP in SLP
0/-, which is DT's Circular
No. 09/2024
r one of the No.05/2024
ses involving odation entry be taken on ry limit.
the assessment ax Act, 1961 (in de addition of n account of sale i.e. a company
68 of the Act.
de on the part of cer passed the 3. On further ap observing as under:
“6.2 It is imp provided suf transactions w or the genera
Intech Ltd. m of being a pen
AO as per a establish tha transactions circumstances
2,89,668/- i appellant was a penny sto involvement.
on record any was a penn discussed in 2,89,668/- on is not sustain
4. We have caref perused the material or explanations wer
Officer in support of in dispute that the primarily on the basi
Intech Ltd., without the assessee and any our opinion, when th the Assessing Office forward all the docu
Assessing Officer cal
Teja
ITA ppeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted portant to note that the Assessing Off fficient evidence to directly link the with the alleged manipulation of unaccou ation of bogus LTCG. While the scrip of M ay have been identified as a penny stoc nny stock, nothing has been brought on r assessment order), there is no direct at the appellant was involved in any p with brokers or operators. Based on th s of the case, I find that the add is primarily based on the assumptio s involved in bogus transactions due to th ck, without any concrete evidence to Further, the Assessing Officer has not e y evidence which prove that M/s Comfor ny stock as no information/evidence the assessment order. Therefore, the ad n account of sale of shares of M/s Comfo nable and is hereby deleted.”
fully considered the rival su l on record. It is not in dispute re filed by the assessee before the impugned share transactio addition was made by the As is of general findings in respect discussing in detail any specif y price rigging or pre-arranged a he assessee did not file any inf er, the onus was on the Ld. C uments filed by the assessee to lling for a remand report or h as Bharatkumar Saglani
4
A No. 4312/MUM/2025
d the addition ficer has not appellant's unted income
M/s Comfort k( in support record by the evidence to pre-arranged he facts and ition of Rs.
on that the he trading in prove such even brought rt Intech Ltd.
e has been ddition of Rs.
rt Intech Ltd.
ubmissions and e that no details e the Assessing on. It is also not ssessing Officer of M/s Comfort fic link between arrangement. In formation before
CIT(A) to either o the file of the he himself could have carried out i circumstances of th simplicitor deleted the 5. In our consider assessee did not coo
CIT(A), before deletin o forward al before him obtain a r
Income-tax o carry out genuinene
6. As far as forwa procedure of calling
Income-tax Rules, 19
CIT(A) is a settled re
CIT v. Manish Build where it was held tha authority must be su
7. In the present addition solely on the assessee’s involveme was brought on reco
Teja
ITA nquiries, which required in he case, rather than, the L e addition which he was not jus red opinion, in such circumsta operate at the assessment stag g the addition, was required eith l submissions and documentar m to the Assessing Officer for remand report in terms of Ru x Rules, 1962, or necessary independent inquiri ss of the transactions.
arding submission to the AO is for a remand report in terms
962 on additional evidences file equirement as per the principle dwell (P) Ltd. [(2012) 204 Taxm at fresh evidence produced befo ubjected to AO’s verification.
t case, the Learned CIT(A) h e basis that there was no direct nt in price manipulation and t ord to establish M/s Comfort I as Bharatkumar Saglani
5
A No. 4312/MUM/2025
the facts and Ld. CIT(A) has tified.
ances where the ge, the Learned her to:
ry evidence filed verification and ule 46A of the ies to verify the concerned, the of Rule 46A of ed before the ld es laid down in man 106 (Del)], ore the appellate has deleted the t evidence of the that no material ntech Ltd. as a penny stock. While fact remains that th assessee to explain absence of such ex incumbent upon the out necessary enqui
Delhi High Court in marketing P Ltd in in carrying out the en the Ld. CIT(A) is und cannot sit ideal and part of decision is rep
“42. The AO here ma proper inquiry to tak having noticed wan simply by allowing also the obligation o have ensured that face of the allegatio a uniform pattern o accounts preceding detailed scrutiny of the notice under S submitted at the sta causing to be ma under Section 250
Teja
ITA these observations may have s he primary onus under section the nature and source of the xplanation at the assessment e CIT(A) to follow the due proce iries before granting relief as h n the case of Jansampark Ad
ITA 525/2014 that if the asses nquiries which are required in t er obligation to carry out such e allow relief to the either of par produced as under:
ay have failed to discharge his obliga ke the matter to logical conclusion. Bu nt of proper inquiry, could not have clo the appeal and deleting the addition of the first appellate authority, as in effective inquiry was carried out, pa ns of the Revenue that the account st of cash deposits of equal amounts i g the transactions in question. This the material submitted by the assesse ection 148 issued by the AO, as a age of appeals, if deemed proper by w ade a "further inquiry" in exercise
(4). This approach not having bee as Bharatkumar Saglani
6
A No. 4312/MUM/2025
some merit, the n 68 lies on the e credit, and in t stage, it was ess for carrying held by Hon’ble dvertising and ssing officer fails the matter, then enquires and he rty. The relevant ation to conduct a ut CIT (Appeals), osed the chapter ns made. It was ndeed of ITAT, to articularly in the tatements reveal in the respective s necessitated a ee in response to also the material way of making or e of the power en adopted, the impugned order of I be approved or uphe
8. In view of the a the Learned CIT(A)
Assessing Officer for to file all necessary d transaction, includin statements, and any claim. The Assessing matter afresh in acc
Assessing Officer sha the assessee and dec in this order.
9. In the result, gr statistical purposes.
CBDT Circular on low
10. In the result, statistical purposes.
Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 12/08/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Teja
ITA

ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (A eld.”
aforesaid discussion, we set as and restore the matter to de novo adjudication. The asse documentary evidence in suppo ng contract notes, demat sta y other relevant material to s g Officer shall verify the same cordance with law. We make it all grant adequate opportunity o cide the issue uninfluenced by a rounds No. 1 to 7 of the Revenue
Ground No. 8, relating to the e w tax effect, is allowed as not be the appeal of the Revenue ced in the open Court on 12/0
/-
CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA as Bharatkumar Saglani
7
A No. 4312/MUM/2025
Appeals), cannot ide the order of the file of the essee is directed ort of the share atements, bank substantiate its and decide the t clear that the of being heard to any observations e are allowed for exception to the eing in dispute.
is allowed for 08/2025. KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Teja
ITA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu as Bharatkumar Saglani
8
A No. 4312/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai