SUDHIR N CHEKE (HUF),MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 28(3)(3), MUMBAI

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 14.11.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A) Mumbai, for the A.Y 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

As per the facts of the present case, the assessee originally filed his return of income for the year under consideration declaring income as Rs. 30,383/-. However on the basis of information received from ITO(Inv), Thane that assessee is beneficiary, who had traded in the bogus script of M/s Aricent Infra Ltd., (Presently known as Kyra Landscape Ltd.) to acquire bogus long term capital gain (LTCG) / short term capital loss (STCL). The AO in the present case issued notice for reopening the assessment and consequently issued a show cause notice dated 3 Sudhir N Cheke (HUF), Mumbai.

In response to the final show cause notice assessee reiterated the same facts and also submitted the documents called for by the AO. The assessee has again reiterated that he has not dealt with any script of M/s Aricent Infra Ltd., (Presently known as Kyra Landscape Ltd.). But still AO concluded that assessee is beneficiary and has traded in the bogus script of M/s Aricent Infra Ltd., (Presently known as Kyra Landscape Ltd.) and ultimately made additions u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,50,340/- while passing the order of assessment.

Aggrieved by the order of assessment the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before the AO but again Ld. CIT(A) instead of verifying the factual position has uphold the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved by the 4 Sudhir N Cheke (HUF), Mumbai. said order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before me.

I have heard the counsels for both the parties and have perused the material placed on record, orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records I noticed that from day one assessee has taken a categorical stand that he has never dealt with in any manner whatsoever with the said script of M/s Aricent Infra Ltd., (Presently known as Kyra Landscape Ltd.). And in this regard assessee has also submitted all the required documents as called for by the AO. It is pertinent to mention here that AO is not merely adjudicator but he is also an investigator therefore, duty cast upon the AO to verify the said facts once a specific stand has been taken by the assessee and by not doing so the AO has committed great injustice to the assessee. It is also pertinent to mention that addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee in a casual and cavalier manner on the basis of conjectures and surmises but the addition can only be made on the basis of cogent, convincing documentary evidences. Which in my view is missing in the present case.

After having thoroughly gone through the facts placed on record I noticed that assessee had moved an application before the AO requesting him to provide the details in respect of transactions carried out in script of M/s Aricent 5 Sudhir N Cheke (HUF), Mumbai.

In the net result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed with no order as to cost.