Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer for Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 2,89,668/- on the sale of shares of M/s Comfort Inftech Ltd., identified as a penny stock. The AO made the addition under Section 68 of the Act as a best judgment assessment since the assessee did not comply.
Held
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without proper inquiry. When the assessee did not cooperate at the assessment stage, the CIT(A) should have conducted inquiries or obtained a remand report from the AO before deleting the addition. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition without conducting proper inquiries when the assessee did not cooperate at the assessment stage, and whether the onus was on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions.
Sections Cited
144, 147, 68, 148, 250(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
ORDER
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 Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani 2 the form of fictitious Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,89,668/ the form of fictitious Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,89,668/ the form of fictitious Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 2,89,668/- on sale of penny stock scrip" M/s. Comfort inftech Ltd ?" sale of penny stock scrip" M/s. Comfort inftech Ltd ?"
2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 2,89,668/- claimed as LTCG, without appreciating the fact that the claimed as LTCG, without appreciating the fact that the claimed as LTCG, without appreciating the fact that the assessee's case was re assessee's case was re-opened, on the basis of the information opened, on the basis of the information received from DGIT(Investigation), Mumbai that assessee was one received from DGIT(Investigation), Mumbai that assessee was one received from DGIT(Investigation), Mumbai that assessee was one of of of the the the beneficiaries beneficiaries beneficiaries of of of the the the scheme, scheme, scheme, which which which hatched hatched hatched by by by promoter/brokers/operators, all have in collusion rigged the prices promoter/brokers/operators, all have in collusion rigged the prices promoter/brokers/operators, all have in collusion rigged the prices of Comfort Infotech Ltd." for commission and that the capital gains of Comfort Infotech Ltd." for commission and that the capital gains of Comfort Infotech Ltd." for commission and that the capital gains arisen on sale of this scrip was an arranged transaction and was arisen on sale of this scrip was an arranged transaction and was arisen on sale of this scrip was an arranged transaction and was executed to obtain accommodation entries of bogus LTCG to the ecuted to obtain accommodation entries of bogus LTCG to the ecuted to obtain accommodation entries of bogus LTCG to the beneficiary after routing unaccounted money?" beneficiary after routing unaccounted money?" 3. *Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 3. *Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 3. *Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance claimed, as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance claimed, as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance claimed, as exemption of LTCG, wi exemption of LTCG, without appreciating the facts that the thout appreciating the facts that the assessee has entered into penny stock transaction, which was assessee has entered into penny stock transaction, which was assessee has entered into penny stock transaction, which was arranged transaction, which involve the series of preconceived arranged transaction, which involve the series of preconceived arranged transaction, which involve the series of preconceived steps and lack of commercial content and totally an artificially steps and lack of commercial content and totally an artificially steps and lack of commercial content and totally an artificially structured transaction entere structured transaction entered into with the sole intent to evade d into with the sole intent to evade taxes ?" 4. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in . Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in . Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance claimed, as law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance claimed, as law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance claimed, as exemption of LTCG without appreciating the nature of the exemption of LTCG without appreciating the nature of the exemption of LTCG without appreciating the nature of the transactions by transactions by accepting the documentation presented by the accepting the documentation presented by the assessee at face value, without adequately considering the assessee at face value, without adequately considering the assessee at face value, without adequately considering the underlying fraudulent intent and the orchestrated steps taken to underlying fraudulent intent and the orchestrated steps taken to underlying fraudulent intent and the orchestrated steps taken to present these transactions as genuine. The assessment of the true present these transactions as genuine. The assessment of the true present these transactions as genuine. The assessment of the true character and intent character and intent behind these transactions was crucial and behind these transactions was crucial and has been overlooked?" has been overlooked?" 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the direct the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the direct the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the direct and circumstantial evidences in view of the decision of and circumstantial evidences in view of the decision of and circumstantial evidences in view of the decision of Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal [1995] 80 Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal [1995] 80 Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal [1995] 80 Taxmann. 89(SC) [1995] 2014 ITR 801 (SC)/ [1995] 125 CTR Taxmann. 89(SC) [1995] 2014 ITR 801 (SC)/ [1995] 125 CTR Taxmann. 89(SC) [1995] 2014 ITR 801 (SC)/ [1995] 125 CTR 124(SC), rendered by the Supreme Court, where it was held that 124(SC), rendered by the Supreme Court, where it was held that 124(SC), rendered by the Supreme Court, where it was held that Hon'ble Court and Tribunal have to judge the evidences before it Hon'ble Court and Tribunal have to judge the evidences before it Hon'ble Court and Tribunal have to judge the evidences before it by applying applying applying the the the test test test of of of probabilities, probabilities, probabilities, the the the surrounding surrounding surrounding circumstances which exercise had been done by the Assessing circumstances which exercise had been done by the Assessing circumstances which exercise had been done by the Assessing Officer?" 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire disallowance the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire disallowance the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the entire disallowance Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani 3 claimed as exemption of LTCG, by ignoring the fact that in such d as exemption of LTCG, by ignoring the fact that in such d as exemption of LTCG, by ignoring the fact that in such cases, where there was a suspicious or bogus trade, the onus is cases, where there was a suspicious or bogus trade, the onus is cases, where there was a suspicious or bogus trade, the onus is on the assessee to establish the genuineness of price hike and on the assessee to establish the genuineness of price hike and on the assessee to establish the genuineness of price hike and also to prove that the price of penny stock which was traded to also to prove that the price of penny stock which was traded to also to prove that the price of penny stock which was traded to claimed LTCG/STCG or loses was not manipulated. The reliance is LTCG/STCG or loses was not manipulated. The reliance is LTCG/STCG or loses was not manipulated. The reliance is placed on judgment of Hon'ble Culcutta High Court's decision in placed on judgment of Hon'ble Culcutta High Court's decision in placed on judgment of Hon'ble Culcutta High Court's decision in the case of Pr. CIT Vs Swati Bajaj (I. A. No. GA/2/2022) in ITAT No the case of Pr. CIT Vs Swati Bajaj (I. A. No. GA/2/2022) in ITAT No the case of Pr. CIT Vs Swati Bajaj (I. A. No. GA/2/2022) in ITAT No 6 of 2022, Dated. 14.06.2022 ?" 6 of 2022, Dated. 14.06.2022 ?" 7. "Whether on the facts and circum 7. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, stances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance claimed, as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance claimed, as Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance claimed, as exemption of LTCG, without appreciating the facts that on the exemption of LTCG, without appreciating the facts that on the exemption of LTCG, without appreciating the facts that on the similar issue of LTCG, the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of similar issue of LTCG, the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of similar issue of LTCG, the Hon'ble ITAT, Kolkata in the case of Manoj Jain (HUF) in Manoj Jain (HUF) in ITA No.1782/KOL/2018, treated the penny , treated the penny stock transaction as income from other sources instead of LTCG, stock transaction as income from other sources instead of LTCG, stock transaction as income from other sources instead of LTCG, and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court Calcutta and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court Calcutta and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court Calcutta (2024) 164 taxmann.com 133 (Calcutta), which has been (2024) 164 taxmann.com 133 (Calcutta), which has been (2024) 164 taxmann.com 133 (Calcutta), which has been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing SLP in confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing SLP in confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing SLP in SLP (c) of 21636/2024 Dated. 20.09.2024?" (c) of 21636/2024 Dated. 20.09.2024?"
The tax effect involved in this case is Rs. 60,880/ 8. The tax effect involved in this case is Rs. 60,880/ 8. The tax effect involved in this case is Rs. 60,880/-, which is below the prescribed limit mentioned in the CBDT's Circular below the prescribed limit mentioned in the CBDT's Circular below the prescribed limit mentioned in the CBDT's Circular F.No.279/Misc.142/2007 F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ(Pt) amended vide No. 09/2024 ITJ(Pt) amended vide No. 09/2024 dated. 17.09.2024 and this case dated. 17.09.2024 and this case also falls under one of the also falls under one of the exceptions specified in the of the CBDT's Circular No.05/2024 exceptions specified in the of the CBDT's Circular No.05/2024 exceptions specified in the of the CBDT's Circular No.05/2024 Dated. 15.03.2024, wherein it is stated that in cases involving Dated. 15.03.2024, wherein it is stated that in cases involving Dated. 15.03.2024, wherein it is stated that in cases involving "Organized Tax Evasion" including cases of accommodation entry "Organized Tax Evasion" including cases of accommodation entry "Organized Tax Evasion" including cases of accommodation entry of penny stocks, the decision to file of penny stocks, the decision to file appeal/SLP shall be taken on appeal/SLP shall be taken on merit without regard to the tax effect and the merit without regard to the tax effect and the monetary monetary limit.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in tax Act, 1961 (in short short ‘the ‘the Act’), Act’), the the Assessing Assessing Officer Offi cer made made addition addition of of Rs.2,89,668/- to the total income of the assessee on account of sale to the total income of the assessee on account of sale to the total income of the assessee on account of sale proceeds of shares of M/s Comfort Inftech Ltd. i.e. a company proceeds of shares of M/s Comfort Inftech Ltd. i.e. a company proceeds of shares of M/s Comfort Inftech Ltd. i.e. a company indentified as a penny stock indentified as a penny stock, in terms of section 68 of the Act. in terms of section 68 of the Act. Before the Assessing Officer no complia Before the Assessing Officer no compliance was made on the part of nce was made on the part of the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer passed the the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer passed the the assessee and therefore, the Assessing Officer passed the assessment as best judgment assessment. assessment as best judgment assessment.
Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani 4 ITA No. 4312/MUM/2025
On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition observing as under:
6.2 It is important to note that the Assessing 6.2 It is important to note that the Assessing Officer has not Officer has not provided sufficient evidence to directly link the appellant's provided sufficient evidence to directly link the appellant's provided sufficient evidence to directly link the appellant's transactions with the alleged manipulation of unaccounted income transactions with the alleged manipulation of unaccounted income transactions with the alleged manipulation of unaccounted income or the generation of bogus LTCG. While the scrip of M/s Comfort or the generation of bogus LTCG. While the scrip of M/s Comfort or the generation of bogus LTCG. While the scrip of M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. may have been identified as a penny s Intech Ltd. may have been identified as a penny stock( in support tock( in support of being a penny stock, nothing has been brought on record by the of being a penny stock, nothing has been brought on record by the of being a penny stock, nothing has been brought on record by the AO as per assessment order), there is no direct evidence to AO as per assessment order), there is no direct evidence to AO as per assessment order), there is no direct evidence to establish that the appellant was involved in any pre establish that the appellant was involved in any pre establish that the appellant was involved in any pre-arranged transactions with brokers or operators. Based on th transactions with brokers or operators. Based on th transactions with brokers or operators. Based on the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the addition of Rs. circumstances of the case, I find that the addition of Rs. circumstances of the case, I find that the addition of Rs. 2,89,668/- is primarily based on the assumption that the is primarily based on the assumption that the is primarily based on the assumption that the appellant was involved in bogus transactions due to the trading in appellant was involved in bogus transactions due to the trading in appellant was involved in bogus transactions due to the trading in a penny stock, without any concrete evidence to prove such a penny stock, without any concrete evidence to prove such a penny stock, without any concrete evidence to prove such involvement. Further, the Assessing Officer has not even brought volvement. Further, the Assessing Officer has not even brought volvement. Further, the Assessing Officer has not even brought on record any evidence which prove that M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. on record any evidence which prove that M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. on record any evidence which prove that M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. was a penny stock as no information/evidence has been was a penny stock as no information/evidence has been was a penny stock as no information/evidence has been discussed in the assessment order. Therefore, the addition of Rs. discussed in the assessment order. Therefore, the addition of Rs. discussed in the assessment order. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 2,89,668/- on account of sale of shares of M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. on account of sale of shares of M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. on account of sale of shares of M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. is not sustainable and is is not sustainable and is hereby deleted.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and We have carefully considered the rival submissions and We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that no details perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that no details perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that no details or explanations were filed by the assessee before the Assessing or explanations were filed by the assessee before the Assessing or explanations were filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer in support of the impugned share transaction. It is also not Officer in support of the impugned share transaction. It is also not Officer in support of the impugned share transaction. It is also not in dispute that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer in dispute that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer in dispute that the addition was made by the Assessing Officer primarily on the basis of general findings in respect of M/s Comfort primarily on the basis of general findings in respect of M/s Comfort primarily on the basis of general findings in respect of M/s Comfort Intech Ltd., without discussing in detail any specific link between Intech Ltd., without discussing in detail any specific link between Intech Ltd., without discussing in detail any specific link between the assessee and any price rigging or pre the assessee and any price rigging or pre-arranged arra arranged arrangement. In our opinion, when the assessee did not file any information before our opinion, when the assessee did not file any information before our opinion, when the assessee did not file any information before the Assessing Officer, the onus was on the Ld. CIT(A) to either the Assessing Officer, the onus was on the Ld. CIT(A) to either the Assessing Officer, the onus was on the Ld. CIT(A) to either forward all the documents filed by the assessee to the file of the forward all the documents filed by the assessee to the file of the forward all the documents filed by the assessee to the file of the Assessing Officer calling for a remand report Assessing Officer calling for a remand report or he himself could or he himself could Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani 5 have carried out inquiries, which required in the facts and have carried out inquiries, which required in the facts and have carried out inquiries, which required in the facts and circumstances of the case, rather than, the Ld. CIT(A) has circumstances of the case, rather than, the Ld. CIT(A) has circumstances of the case, rather than, the Ld. CIT(A) has simplicitor deleted the addition which he was not justified. deleted the addition which he was not justified. deleted the addition which he was not justified.
In our considered opinion, in such circumstances whe n our considered opinion, in such circumstances where the n our considered opinion, in such circumstances whe assessee did not cooperate at the assessment stage, the Learned assessee did not cooperate at the assessment stage, the Learned assessee did not cooperate at the assessment stage, the Learned CIT(A), before deleting the addition, was required either to: CIT(A), before deleting the addition, was required either to: CIT(A), before deleting the addition, was required either to: o forward all submissions and documentary evidence filed forward all submissions and documentary evidence filed forward all submissions and documentary evidence filed before him to the Assessing Officer for verification and before him to the Assessing Officer for verification and before him to the Assessing Officer for verification and obtain a re obtain a remand report in terms of Rule 46A of the mand report in terms of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, or tax Rules, 1962, or o carry out necessary independent inquiries to verify the carry out necessary independent inquiries to verify the carry out necessary independent inquiries to verify the genuineness of the transactions. genuineness of the transactions.
As far as forwarding submission to the AO is concerned, the As far as forwarding submission to the AO is concerned, the As far as forwarding submission to the AO is concerned, the procedure of calling for a remand re of calling for a remand report in terms of Rule 46A of port in terms of Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules, 1962 on additional evidences filed before the ld tax Rules, 1962 on additional evidences filed before the ld tax Rules, 1962 on additional evidences filed before the ld CIT(A) is a settled requirement as per the principles laid down in is a settled requirement as per the principles laid down in is a settled requirement as per the principles laid down in CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd. CIT v. Manish Buildwell (P) Ltd. [(2012) 204 Taxman 106 (Del)], [(2012) 204 Taxman 106 (Del)], where it was held that fresh where it was held that fresh evidence produced before the appellate evidence produced before the appellate authority must be subjected to AO’s verification. authority must be subjected to AO’s verification.
In the present case, the Learned CIT(A) has deleted the 7. In the present case, the Learned CIT(A) has deleted the In the present case, the Learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition solely on the basis that there was no direct evidence of the addition solely on the basis that there was no direct evidence of the addition solely on the basis that there was no direct evidence of the lation and that no material assessee’s involvement in price manipu assessee’s involvement in price manipulation and that no material was brought on record to establish M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. as a was brought on record to establish M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. as a was brought on record to establish M/s Comfort Intech Ltd. as a Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani 6 penny stock. While these observations may have some merit, the penny stock. While these observations may have some merit, the penny stock. While these observations may have some merit, the fact remains that the primary onus under section 68 lies on the fact remains that the primary onus under section 68 lies on the fact remains that the primary onus under section 68 lies on the assessee to explain the nature and so assessee to explain the nature and source of the credit, and in urce of the credit, and in absence of such explanation at the assessment stage, it was absence of such explanation at the assessment stage, it was absence of such explanation at the assessment stage, it was incumbent upon the CIT(A) to follow the due incumbent upon the CIT(A) to follow the due process for carrying process for carrying out necessary enquiries before granting relief as held by Hon’ble out necessary enquiries before granting relief as held by out necessary enquiries before granting relief as held by Delhi High Court in the case of Jansampark Advertising ampark Advertising and Delhi High Court in the case of marketing P Ltd in marketing P Ltd in ITA 525/2014 that if the assessing officer fails ITA 525/2014 that if the assessing officer fails in carrying out the enquiries which are required in the matter, then in carrying out the enquiries which are required in the matter, then in carrying out the enquiries which are required in the matter, then the Ld. CIT(A) is under obligation to carry out such enquires and he the Ld. CIT(A) is under obligation to carry out such enquires and he the Ld. CIT(A) is under obligation to carry out such enquires and he cannot sit ideal and allo cannot sit ideal and allow relief to the either of party. The relevant w relief to the either of party. The relevant part of decision is reproduced as under: part of decision is reproduced as under:
42. The AO here may have failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a 42. The AO here may have failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a 42. The AO here may have failed to discharge his obligation to conduct a proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion. But CIT (Appeals), proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion. But CIT (Appeals), proper inquiry to take the matter to logical conclusion. But CIT (Appeals), having noticed want of proper inquiry, could not have closed the chapter having noticed want of proper inquiry, could not have closed the chapter simply by allowing the appeal and deleting the additions made. It was simply by allowing the appeal and deleting the additions made. It was simply by allowing the appeal and deleting the additions made. It was also the obligation of the first appellate authority, as indeed of ITAT, to also the obligation of the first appellate authority, as indeed of ITAT, to also the obligation of the first appellate authority, as indeed of ITAT, to have ensured that effective inquiry was carried out, par have ensured that effective inquiry was carried out, particularly in the have ensured that effective inquiry was carried out, par face of the allegations of the Revenue that the account statements reveal face of the allegations of the Revenue that the account statements reveal face of the allegations of the Revenue that the account statements reveal a uniform pattern of cash deposits of equal amounts in the respective a uniform pattern of cash deposits of equal amounts in the respective a uniform pattern of cash deposits of equal amounts in the respective accounts preceding the transactions in question. This necessitated a accounts preceding the transactions in question. This necessitated a accounts preceding the transactions in question. This necessitated a detailed scrutiny of the material submitted by the assessee in response to detailed scrutiny of the m aterial submitted by the assessee in response to the notice under Section 148 Section 148 issued by the AO, as also the material issued by the AO, as also the material submitted at the stage of appeals, if deemed proper by way of making or submitted at the stage of appeals, if deemed proper by way of making or submitted at the stage of appeals, if deemed proper by way of making or causing to be made a further inquiry" in exercise of the power ade a "further inquiry" in exercise of the power ade a "further inquiry" in exercise of the power under Section 250(4) Section 250(4). This approach not having been adopted, the . This approach not having been adopted, the Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani Tejas Bharatkumar Saglani 7 impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot impugned order of ITAT, and consequently that of CIT (Appeals), cannot be approved or upheld.” be approved or uphe
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion aforesaid discussion, we set aside the order of , we set aside the order of the Learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the the Learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the the Learned CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to file all necessary documentary evidence in support of the share to file all necessary documentary evidence in support to file all necessary documentary evidence in support transaction, including contract notes, demat statements, bank transaction, including contract notes, demat statements, bank transaction, including contract notes, demat statements, bank statements, and any other relevant material to substantiate its statements, and any other relevant material to substantiate its statements, and any other relevant material to substantiate its claim. The Assessing Officer shall verify the same and decide the claim. The Assessing Officer shall verify the same and decide the claim. The Assessing Officer shall verify the same and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. matter afresh in accordance with law. We make it cl We make it clear that the Assessing Officer shall grant adequate opportunity of being heard to Assessing Officer shall grant adequate opportunity of being heard to Assessing Officer shall grant adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue uninfluenced by any observations the assessee and decide the issue uninfluenced by any observations the assessee and decide the issue uninfluenced by any observations in this order.
In the result, grounds No. 1 to 7 of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, grounds No. 1 to 7 of the Revenue are allowed for In the result, grounds No. 1 to 7 of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Gr statistical purposes. Ground No. 8, relating to the exception to the ound No. 8, relating to the exception to the CBDT Circular on low tax effect, is allowed as not being in dispute. CBDT Circular on low tax effect, is allowed as not being in dispute. CBDT Circular on low tax effect, is allowed as not being in dispute.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. statistical purposes.