CHINTAN SHAILESH SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-30(1)(2), NOW ITO WARD-41(3)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“C” BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Chintan Shailesh Shah
Rushikesh, Shanti Nagar,
Adarsh Dugdhalaya
Malad (W), Mumbai –
400064. Vs.
ITO, Ward 30(1)(2)
(Now Ward 41(3)(1))
Kautilya Bhavan, BKC,
Bandra (E), Mumbai –
400051. PAN/GIR No. AMZPS2768Q
(Applicant)
(Respondent)

Assessee by None
Revenue by Shri Mahesh Pamnani, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing
17.02.2025
Date of Pronouncement
17.02.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order 14.03.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National
Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called, even no application for seeking adjournment has been filed. From the records, we noticed that today is the 8th opportunity and even on previous

2
Chintan Shailesh Shah, Mumbai occasions dates were being sought by the assessee, and ultimately stopped appearing before the court. In our view, it is the bounded duty of assessee to pursue its appeal but assessee has failed to do so, which goes to show that assessee is not interested in pursuing the present appeal.
3. On the other hand Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments. Therefore we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the case ex-parte.
4. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material placed on record and orders passed by the revenue authorities. The assessee has challenged the additions made by the AO u/s 68 and 69C of the Act, and in this regard, we have meticulously analyzed the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and found that Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with both the grounds in detail while passing the orders and operative portion of the Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para 6 to 7 which are reproduced herein below:

After careful perusal of facts on record and submissions of the appellant, the is decided as hereunder. appeal

(i) The appellant had purchased 15000 shares of M/s. Conart
Traders Ltd @Rs. 20/- per share for total consideration of Rs.
3,00,000/- on 28/11/2011 from Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd vide debit note dated 28/11/2011. The payment had been made to the seller on 15/09/2011 by through bank account vide cheque drawn by the appellant. The appellant was allotted share certificates in physical form and were dematerialized and received in account of the appellant during July 2013

(ii) Conart Traders Ltd was amalgamated with Sunrise Asian ltd, a listed company as per order of Hon'ble Bombay High Court and appellant received 15000 equity shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd on 21/06/2013 These shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd were received in demat account of the appellant on 27/09/2013

(iii) Appellant sold these 15000 equity shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd for Rs. 75.90,730-on Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) through stock broker Stochastics Securities Pvt Ltd vis contract notes dated
03/09/2013,
05/09/2013,
10/09/2013,
16/09/2013,
19/09/2015 & 20/09/2013 The Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was paid on these transactions, sale proceeds were received through RTGS/account payee cheques/banking channel

(iv) Coples of ledger account with broker, contract notes, bank statement, demat account statement were filed before the AO who had issued notices u/s 133(6) to the BSE & the broker and did not point out any adverse facts

(v) The appellant was not provided the opportunity to cross- examine Vipul Vidur Bhatt & the appellant denied knowing this person.

(vi) The SEBI order dated 06/09/2021 does not mention the name of the appellant

4
Circle-2(2) dated
11.08.2020, Sangeeta Naval Agarwal Vs ITO-25(1)(1) ITA No.
1806/Mum/2022, dated 28.11.2022

It is also important to note that as mentioned by the AO in assessment order at para 10.2 & 10.3, the appellant was provided copy of statement of Vipul Vidur Bhat. This fact has been admitted by the appellant at page 4 in submissions filed on 26/12/2023 during the appeal proceedings though in an evasive and back-handed manner saying that it was not made available in proper time.

However, the fact remains that the appellant has not been able to explain the abnormal price rise of shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd within a short span of time.
Notwithstanding such submissions of the appellant, the issue of legal foundation of providing the assessees each and every document relied upon by the AD and the issue of cross-examination is dealt in following paragraphs of this order.

It is important to go through the genesis of right to cross-examination.
The issue of examination & cross-examination has roots in Section 138
of Evidence Act 1872. As per the same, the Order of examinations is witnesses shall be first examined-in-chief, then (if the adverse party so desires) cross-examined, then (if the party calling him so desires) re- examined. Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the provision of recording oral evidence. All those statements which the court permits or expects the witnesses to make in its' presence regarding the truth of the facts are called Oral Evidence. Thus,
'witnesses' fall into the category of oral evidence. In fact, Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act states that all those documents which are presented in the court for inspection are called documentary evidences.
This section strengthens that it is the documentary evidence that would show the actual attitude of the parties and their consciousness regarding the custom & these are more important than any oral evidence. Thus, the documentary evidences (seized material, bank account trails etc.) are mostly held as primary evidences.

5
Chintan Shailesh Shah, Mumbai

That right to cross-examination is a not a binding & absolute right applicable to Income Tax Proceedings has been held in cases of Nath
International Sales Vs. UOI AIR 1992 Del 295, State of J&K Vs. Bakshi
Gulam Mohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122, Kanungo and Co. v. Collector of Customs [1983] ELT 1486 (SC), T. Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT (1964) 51
ITR 20 (Mad) and Satellite Engg. Ltd. v. Union of India 1983 ELT 2177
(Bom.).

In GTC Industries Ltd. V. Asstt. CIT (1998) 60 TTJ (Bom. Trib) 308, it was held that under the dictum of 'Audi Alteram Partem', the right to cross-examine the witness who made adverse report is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the said dictum. The principles of natural justice do not require formal cross- examination. It was held that formal cross-examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed by the rules of evidence, and is the creation of Court and that it is part of legal and statutory justice, and not a part of natural justice, therefore, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the revenue could not rely on any evidence which had not been subjected to cross-examination. It was held that if a witness has given directly incriminating statement and the addition in the assessment is based solely or mainly on such statement, in that eventuality it is incumbent on the Assessing Officer to allow cross- examination and adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order, to reach the finality, should be disclosed to the assessee. It was also held that this rule is not applicable where the material or evidence used is of collateral nature. Also, in case of Amrapali Fincap Ltd [2016] 73 taxmann.com 37
(Gujarat), the assessee had requested the Settlement Commission for cross-examination of one Sirish C Shah (S), accommodation entry provider, whose statements had been relied upon by the Department.
Hon'ble Settlement Commission had rejected application of assessee who filed a writ against order of Settlement commission raising denial of cross-examination as one of the contentions. Hon'ble Juri ictiorial
High Court held that since Settlement Commission, besides relying upon statements of 'S' and other witnesses, had also taken into consideration other facts available on record, there was no scope for interference in order of Settlement Commission.

This decision again establishes that when statements are relied upon by the Department as secondary evidence in collaboration with other evidences eg. correlation with books, bank accounts, seized material etc., then the denial of right to cross-examination cannot be taken as plea to not make the addition.

In the case of present appellant also, the AO did not rely merely upon the statements of third parties but he analyzed the financial performance of the impugned scrip, its share price movement, mode of 6
Chintan Shailesh Shah, Mumbai acquisition of shares by the appellant, made third part inquiries from counter-parties of sale-trades of the appellant and also had recorded the statement of the appellant himself.

It is also seen that in a case, similar to that of appellant, of availing accommodation entry of capital gains in case of Swati Bajaj [2022] 139
taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta), Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has held below

“The first argument on behalf of the assessee is that the copy of the investigation report was not furnished to them despite specific written request made on behalf of the assesses to furnish the copy of the report, the statements recorded and provide those persons from whom statements were recorded to be cross examined on behalf of the assessee. There is no dispute to the fact that the copy of the statement said to have been recorded during the course of investigation has not been furnished to the assessees and the request made by some of them for cross examining of those persons was not considered. The question would be as to whether the non-compliance of the above would render the assessments bad in law. The argument of the revenue is that the assessments cannot be held to be illegal merely on the grounds that the copy of the report was not furnished as the respective assessing officers have clearly mentioned as to the nature of investigation done by the department and as the report itself states that the investigation commenced not from the assessees end but the individuals who dealt with these penny stocks who were targeted. It is equally true invariably in all cases, the statement of the stock brokers, the entry operators or the Directors of the various penny stock companies does not directly implicate the assessee. If such being the situation, the assessee cannot be heard to say that the copy of the entire report should have been furnished to him, the person from whom the statements were recorded should have been produced for cross examination as admittedly there is nothing to implicate the assessee Smt. Swati Bajaj of insider trading or rigging of share prices. But the allegation against the assessee is that the claim for LTCG/LTCL is bogus. As pointed out by Mr. Rai, learned senior standing counsel, the investigation report is general in nature not assessee specific. Therefore, we are required to see as to whether non-furnishing of the report which according to the revenue is available in the public domain would vitiate the proceedings on the ground that the assessee was put to prejudice.

……………………………
……………………………

7
Chintan Shailesh Shah, Mumbai the assessees have to specifically point out as to how they were prejudiced on account of non-furnishing of the investigation report in its entirety, failure to produce the persons from whom the statements were recorded for being cross examined would cause prejudice to the assessee as nowhere in the report the names of the assessees feature. The investigation report states that the investigation has not commenced from the individuals but it has commenced who had dealt with the penny stocks, concept of working backwards. This is a very significant factor to be remembered. Therefore, there has been absolute anonymity of the assessee in the process of investigation. The endeavour of the department is to examine the "modus operandi" adopted and in that process now seek to identify the assessees who have benefited on account of such "modus operandi". Therefore, considering the factual scenario no prejudice has been established to the assessee by not furnishing the investigation report in its entirety nor making the persons available for cross examination as admitted by the department in substantial number of cases the assessees have not been specifically indicted by those persons from whom statements have been recorded. 59. We are conscious of the fact that there may be exceptions however nothing has been brought before us to show that there was an exception in any of these appeals heard by us. In a few cases the assessee has been made known of the statement of the Director of the penny stock company or the stock broker, entry operator despite which those assessees could not make any headway. While on this issue, we need to consider as to whether and under what circumstances the right of cross examination can be demanded as a vested right. In KishanlalAgarwalla (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court pointed out that no natural justice requires that there should be a kind of formal cross examination as it is a procedural justice, governed by the rules and regulations. Further it was held that so long as the party charged has a fair and reasonable opportunity would receive, comment and criticize the evidence, statements or records on which the charges is being against him, the demand and tests of natural justice are satisfied.
……………………………
……………………………
In Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right of hearing cannot include the right of cross examination and the right must depend upon the circumstances of each case and must also depend on the statute under which the allegations are being enquired into. 61. Having noted the above legal position, it goes without saying there is no vested right for the assessee to cross examine the persons who have not deposed

8
Chintan Shailesh Shah, Mumbai anything against the assessee. The investigation report proceeds on a different perspective commencing from a different point and this has led to the enquiry being conducted by the assessing officer calling upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the claim of LTCG.
……………………………
……………………………
the report submitted by the investigation department cannot be thrown out on the grounds urged on behalf of the assessees. The assesses have not been shown to be prejudiced on account of non- furnishing of the investigation report or non-production of the persons for cross examination as the assessee has not specifically indicated as to how he was prejudiced, coupled with the fact as admitted by the revenue, the statements do not indict the assessee. That apart, we have noted that the investigation has commenced targeting the individuals who dealt with the penny stocks and after examining the modus seeing the cash trail the report has been submitted recommending the same to be placed before the DGIT (investigation) of all the states of the country. It is thereafter the concerned assessing officers have been informed to consider as to the bonafideness and genuineness of the claims of LTCG/LTCL of the respective assessees qua the findings which emanated during the investigation conducted on the individuals who dealt with the penny stocks. Therefore, the assessments have commenced by the assessing officers calling upon the assessee to explain the genuineness of the claim of LTCG/LTCL made by them. in all the assessment orders, substantial portion of the investigation report has been noted in full. A careful reading of the some would show that the assessee has not been named in the report. If such be the case, unless and until the assessee shows and proves that she/he was prejudiced on account of such report/statement mere mentioning that non-furnishing of the report or non-availability of the person for cross examination cannot vitiate the proceedings.
The assessees have miserably failed to prove the test of prejudice or that the test of fair hearing has not been satisfied in their individual cases. In all the cases, the assessees have been issued notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act they have been directed to furnish the documents, the assessee have complied with the directions, appeared before the assessing officer and in many cases represented by Advocates/Chartered
Accountants, elaborate legal submissions have been made both oral and in writing and thereafter the assessments have been completed. Nothing prevented the assessee from mentioning that unless and until the report is furnished and the statements are provided, they would not in a position to take part in the inquiry

9
Chintan Shailesh Shah, Mumbai which is being conducted by the assessing officer in scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee were conscious of the fact that they have not been named in the report, therefore made a vague and bold statement that the non- furnishing of report would vitiate the proceedings. Therefore, merely by mentioning that statements have not been furnished can in no manner advance the case of the assessee. If the report was available in the public domain as has been downloaded and produced before us by the learned standing counsel for the revenue, nothing prevented the assesses who are ably defended by Chartered Accountants and Advocates to download such reports and examine the same and thereafter put up their defence. Therefore, the based on such general statements of violation of principles of natural justice the assessees have not made out any case.
……………………………
……………………………
It is equally not in dispute that whatever information which was required to be made known to the assessee has been informed to the assessee by the assessing officer by issuance of a notice to each of the assesses to which they have responded by submitting their replies. Therefore, in the absence of any prejudice caused to the assessee on account of non-furnishing of the entire report, the assessees cannot be a heard to say that there has been violation of principles of natural justice and their right to defend themselves was in any manner affected. At this juncture, it would be of much relevance to refer to the decision in K. R. Ajmera
(supra). The question of law which arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as to what is the degree of proof required to hold brokers/sub-brokers liable for fraudulent/manipulative practices under the SEBI Regulations and for violating the code of conduct of the SEBI (Stocks brokers and Sub-brokers) Regulations. It was pointed out that the code of conduct for stock brokers lays down that they shall maintain high standard of integrity, promptitude and fairness in the conduct of all investment business and shall act with due skill and care and diligence in the conduct of all investment business. The Code also enumerates different shades of duties of stock brokers towards the investor and those duties pertain to high standard of integrity that the stock broker is required to maintain in the conduct of his business. It was further pointed out that it is a fundamental principle of law that prove of an allegation levelled against a person may be in the form of direct substantive evidence or as in many cases such proof may have to be inferred by a logical process of reasoning from the totality of the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations/charges made and levelled. It was further held that direct evidence is a more certain basis to come to a conclusion yet in the absence thereof the courts cannot be helpless. It was further pointed out that it is the judicial duty to take note of the immediate and proximate facts and circumstances surrounding the events on which the charges/allegations are founded and to reach what would appear to the Court to be a reasonable conclusion therefrom. The test would always be that what inferential process that a reasonable/prudent man would adopt to arrive at a conclusion.
The above tests laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court were applied to the facts of the case in K.R. Ajmera (supra) and it was noted that the scrips in which trading had been done wherefore illiquid scrips meaning thereby that such scrips though listed in the BSE were not a matter of every day buy and sell transactions.
Further it was held that trading in such illiquid scrips is not impermissible yet voluminous trading over a period of time in such scrips is a fact that should attract the attention of a vigilant trader engaged in such trades. It was further pointed out that though proximity of time between the buy and sell orders may not be conclusive in an isolated case such an event in a situation where there is a huge volume and trading can reasonable point to some kind of a fraudulent/manipulative exercise with prior meeting of minds. Such meeting of minds so as to attract the liability of the brokers/sub-broker and may be between the brokers/sub-broker and the client or it could be between two brokers/sub-brokers engaged in the buy and sell transactions.
Further it was pointed out that when over a period of time such transactions have been made between the same set of brokers or a group of brokers a conclusion can be a reasonable reached that there is a concerted effort on the part of the brokers concerned to indulge in synchronized trade the consequences of which is large volumes of fictitious trading resulting in unnatural rise in hiking the price/value of the scrips. In the said case, it was argued that on a screen-based trading the identity of the second party to be a client or the broker is not known to the first party/client or broker.
This argument was rejected as being irrelevant. It was pointed out that the screen-based identity system keeps the identity of the parties anonymous and it will be too naïve to rests the final conclusions on said basis which overlooks a meeting of minds elsewhere. Further it was held that direct proof of such meeting of mind elsewhere would rarely be forth coming and therefore the test is one of the preponderance of probabilities so far as the adjudication of a civil liability arising out of violation of the Act or to the Regulations. Further it was held that the conclusion has to be gathered from various circumstances like that volume of trade effected; the period of persistence in trading in particular scrips; relevant factors.

Thus, the legal principle which can be culled out from the above decision is that to prove the allegations, against the assessee, can be inferred by a logical process of reasoning from the totality of the attending facts and circumstances surrounding the allegations/charges made and levelled and when direct evidence is not available, it is the duty of the Court to take note of the immediate and proximate facts and circumstances surrounding the events on which the charges/allegations are founded so as to reach a reasonable conclusion and the test would be what inferential process that a reasonable/prudent man would apply to arrive at a conclusion. Further proximity and time and prior meeting of minds is also a very important factor especially when the income tax department has been able to point out that there has been a unnatural rise in the price of the scrips of very little known companies. Furthermore, in all the cases, there were minimum of two brokers who have been involved in the transaction It would be very difficult to gather direct proof of the meeting of minds of those brokers or sub-brokers or middlemen or entry operators and therefore, the test to be applied is the test of preponderance of probabilities to ascertain as to whether there has been violation of the provisions of the Income-tax Act. In such a circumstance, the conclusion has to be gathered from various circumstances like the volume from trade, period of persistence in trading in the particular scrips, particulars of buy and sell orders and the volume thereof and proximity of time between the two which are relevant factors. Therefore, in our considered view the methodology adopted by the department cannot be faulted.
……………………………
……………………………

It is very rare and difficult to get direct information or evidence with regard to the prior meeting of minds of the persons involved in the manipulative activities of price rigging and insider trading.
We can draw a parallel in cases of adulteration of food stuff, more than often action is initiated under the relevant Act after the adulteration takes place, the users of adulterated products get affected etc. Therefore, a holistic approach is required to be made and the test of preponderance of probabilities have to be applied and while doing so, we cannot loose sight of the fact that the shares of very little known companies with in-significant business had a steep rise in the share prices within the period of little over a year. The Income-tax department was not privy to such peculiar claim for a LTCG/STCL, the investigation commenced. As pointed out the investigation did not commence from the assessee but had commenced from the companies and the persons who were involved in the trading of the shares of these companies which are all classified as penny stocks companies. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that the copy of the investigation report has not been furnished, the persons from whom statements have been recorded have not been produced for cross examination are all contention which has to necessarily fail for several reasons which we have set out in the proceedings paragraphs. To reiterate, the assessee was not named in the report and when the assessee makes the claim for exemption the onus of proof is on the assessee to prove the genuinity. Unfortunately, the assessees have been harping upon the transactions done by them and by relying upon the documents in their hands to contend that the transactions done were genuine. Unfortunately, the test of genuinity needs to be established otherwise, the assessees are lawfully bound to prove the huge LTCG claims to be genuine. In other words, if there is information and data available of unreasonable rise in the price of the shares of these penny stock companies over a short period of time of little more than one year, the genuinity of such steep rise in the prices of shares needs to be established and the onus is on the assessee to do so as mandated in Section 68 of the Act. Thus, the assessees cannot be permitted to contend that the assessments were based on surmises and conjectures or presumptions or assumptions. The assessee does not and cannot dispute the fact that the shares of the companies which they have dealt with were insignificant in value prior to their trading. If such is the situation, it is the assessee who has to establish that the price rise was genuine and consequently they are entitled to claim LTCG on their transaction. Until and unless the initial burden cast upon the assessee is discharged, the onus does not shift to the revenue to prove otherwise. It is incorrect to argue that the assessees have been called upon to prove the negative in fact, it is the assessees duty to establish that the rise of the price of shares within a short period of time was a genuine move that those penny stocks companies had credit worthiness and coupled with genuinity and identity. The assesses cannot be heard to say that their claim has to be examined only based upon the documents produced by them namely bank details, the purchase/sell documents, the details of the D-Mat Account etc. The assesses have lost sight of an important fact that when a claim is made for LTCG or STCL, the onus is on the assessee to prove that credit worthiness of the to within a short span of time.
……………………………
……………………………

It was argued that unless there are foundational facts, circumstantial evidence cannot be relied on. This argument does not merit acceptance as wealth of information and facts were on record which is the outcome of the investigation on the companies, stock brokers, entry operators etc. Based on those foundational facts the department has adopted the concept of "working backward" leading to the assessees. While at that relevant stage the sounding circumstances, the normal human conduct of a prudent investor, the probabilities that may spill over, were all taken into consideration to negative the claim for exception made by the assessee. Therefore, the department was fully justified in taking note of the prevailing circumstances to decide against the assessees.”

The above decision has been subsequently followed by Hon'ble High
Court in Nand Kishore Agarwala [2022] 143 taxmann.com 402
(Calcutta) and also by Hon'ble ITAT in Hemil Subhashbhai Shah ITA
No.1121/Ahd/2018
dated
12/06/2023
regarding the furnishing of report of investigation wing to the assessees and the issue of cross-examination of persons whose statements were relied upon by the Department in such reports.

In addition to the above discussion regarding legal position on this issue, in the case of the present appellant, the AO did not rely merely upon the statements of the accommodation entry providers but he went ahead and conducted independent inquiries about the counter-parties of trade of the appellant in the impugned scrip, he brought out their credentials and non-filer/non-responsive status. The AO also analyzed the share price data & financial health of the penny stock purchases/sold by the appellant. Thus, the order of the AO was not based solely upon the statement of third parties.

Considering the above, the contentions of the appellant regarding the AO violating principles of natural justice & right to cross-examination are not acceptable & hereby rejected.

In so far as no scope of manipulation in prices of listed securities on BSE/NSE/stock exchanges is concerned, there have been numerous cases which have been confirmed by even Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the technological mechanisms have been used for rigging of prices of securities by the market manipulators. Some such examples are Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Rakhi Trading Pvt Ltd
(Civil Appeal no. 1969/2011 decision dated 08/02/2018) and Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Kishore R. Ajmera (Civil
Appeal no. 2818/2008 decision dated 23/02/2016) which bring out as to how a group of persons acting in unison can rig the prices of shares and securities even on the seemingly foolproof technical platforms of stock exchanges using banking channels and demat accounts.

Regarding the claim that entire sales were through stock exchanges, via banking channels and demat account, and even purchase was made from banking channels, the documents submitted by appellant during the assessment and appeal proceedings have been perused to test the veracity of his claim regarding genuineness of transactions.

The purchase was not made online but it was an off-market transaction.
The shares purchased by the appellant were of a closely held company,
Conart Traders Ltd and the appellant purchased these 15000 shares from Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd who was stated as the holder of these shares. The payment was made vide cheque. debited from appellant's bank account on 15/09/2011. The appellant furnished copy of debit note dated 28/11/2011 of the broker, share transfer form dated
27/11/2011, share certificate dated 25/11/2011 in the name of Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd & memorandum of transfer of shares to the appellant dated 27/11/2011. The following discrepancies are noted in this purchase transaction:

(i) The payment was made on 15/09/2011 but shares were not transferred till 27/11/2011 in the name of the appellant.

(ii) The share certificate in the name of Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd is dated 25/11/2011 and it can be inferred that before this date, this entity was not owning the shares of Conart Traders Pvt Ltd and it not clear as to how the appellant could have purchased shares of Conart Traders from Sanstohima in September 2011
when it was not owning such shares in the first place,
(iii) The memorandum of transfer of shares to the appellant dated
27/11/2011 contains only the name of the appellant on a fresh page with register folio no. 483. (iv) Despite multiple questions from the AO during recording of his statement u/s 131, the appellant admitted that he, despite being a director of a share-trading firm, had not idea about financials of Conart Traders whose shares he had purchased and disposed.
He did not know about key personnel of this company, its location or its activities, he could not give any reason (apart from word of mouth') as to why and on whose recommendation, he had purchased shares of an unlisted company about whom he knew nothing. The appellant has not come clean as to who was the person who advised him about purchase of an unknown, unlisted company.

He could not even tell the name of the person of Santoshima
Tradelink whom he had contacted to purchase the impugned shares. Since the purchase transaction was off-market and of an unknown, closely-held unlisted company, the appellant is expected to know the names of the persons who advised him to purchase shares of this entity and from whom he purchased such shares.

The next event was amalgamation of Conart Traders, Santoshima
Tradelink with Sunrise Asian Ltd by Order of Hon'ble Bombay High
Court dated 22/03/2013. The appellant stated before the AO that he was not aware about any such proceedings. he had not received any notices/letters from Conart Traders regarding any meeting of shareholders in reference to the amalgamation proceedings even though vide Hon'ble High court's order dated 08/10/2012 in Company
Summons for Directions (L) 709/2012, the company was bound to issue notice to shareholders.

The appellant being unaware about this event and the entity not sending any notice to the share-holder appellant again shows that the fact of appellant being a shareholder even in the year 2012 was not established.

The next event was allotment of shares of Sunrise Asian Ltd to the appellant. The appellant furnished a copy of such allotment letter dated
21/06/2013 wherein 15000 shares of Conart Traders Ltd having folio no. 0000655, distinctive no. 5438271 to 5453270 have been transferred in the name of the appellant. The shares of Conart Traders were stated to be held by the appellant in physical form & new shares of Sunrise were also not received by him in demat account.
director along with his father and brother.

The AO has also brought forward additional fact of Vipul Vidur Bhat, accommodation entry provider, wherein he admitted in statement u/s 132(4) of the Act that he had manipulated transactions of amalgamation of Conart, Sunrise and Santoshima and then rigged share prices of Sunrise Asian to arrange for entries for beneficiaries though accounts of entities controlled trolled by him.

"During the Investigation period, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide an Order dated March 22, 2013, had sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation of Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd. (First Transferor
Company) and Conart Trader's Ltd. (Second Transferor Company) with Sunrise
Asian
(Transferee
Company)
(Scheme of Amalgamation") under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Pursuant to the aforementioned Scheme, 4,14,01,140 equity shares of the Company were allotted to 1697 entities/allottees
(shareholders of Santoshima Tradelinks Ltd. and Conart Trader's
Ltd.) on May 24, 2013. Out of the aforementioned
1697
entities/allottees,
1331
entities/allottees had traded in the market during the Investigation period wherein
77
connected entities were counterparties to the sale of shares by 1059
such entities/allottees for a value of 5,98,90,16,143 amounting to 57.08% of the total sale value (10,49,09,71,861) realized by the entities/allottees.

From the Last Traded Price ("LTP") analysis, it was observed that 83 connected entities had manipulated the price of the scrip of Sunrise Aslan in four patches of trading during the Investigation period. Further, as stated above, 77 out of the aforementioned 83
entities were counterparties to the sale of shares by 1059
entities/allottees at the artificially inflated/manipulated price."

Thus, SEBI has brought out that counter-parties of all those 1331 (who were allottees of shares of Sunrise pursuant to amalgamation and who
September 30, 2015) were entities who had been held responsible for manipulation of share prices to achieve abnormal high in such prices during this period. This order has been further concurred & upheld in adjudication order no./SM/S/2022-23/17112-17196 dated June 17,
2022 of SEBI wherein penalty of Rs. 1 crore has been imposed on the entities involved in manipulation.

This brings out that the counter-parties of sale of appellant's sale trades were also indicted for manipulating the share prices.

"It is also the plea of the assessee that the payment for the acquisition of shares was made from the bank account and the shares were dematerialised and credited to the Demat account maintained by the assessee. It was further the submission of the assessee that during the year, the assessee sold the shares through the broker on BSE However, as noted above, not only
Sunrise Asian Ltd but the exit providers were also found to be involved in manipulative trade practices by the SEBI. Further, Mr.
Vipul Vidur Bhatt in his statement had admitted and confirmed that all the entities controlled and managed by him are mere bogus paper companies and he is involved in providing accommodation entry on a commission basis. Thus, not only
Sunrise Asian Ltd but Conart Traders Ltd, whose shares were initially purchased by the assessee in physical form, were found to be belonging to Mr. Vipul Vidur Bhatt in the present case.
Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the findings of the AO, which were confirmed by the learned CIT(A) vide impugned order."

Similarly, on the basis of counter-party, Comfort Securities, being indicted by SEBI, in case of Rajendra M Jain ITA No. 733 to 775/Mum/2022 dated 31/01/2023, Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai has upheld the additions u/s 68 of the Act made by the AO on account of transactions in scrip of Sunrise Asian.
Subsequently also, in case of Aakruti Ketan Mehta ITA No.
53/Mum/2023 Dated 31/01/2024, assessee had purchased shares offline of Santoshima Trade links Ltd on 27/11/2011 @Rs.20/- per share and same were paid through account payee cheques of Rs.
11,00,000/- on 07/09/2011. Share certificates regarding transfer of shares in the name of the assessee was issued by the said company which was later on de-materialized in the name of the assessee after couple of months. The assessee was allotted shares of Sunrise Asian on amalgamation and these shares were sold by the assessee on BSE platform through recognized stock broker via banking channels. Hon'ble
Tribunal held as below:

"In light of the fact that an independent agency like SEBI has found that the transaction of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd., was manipulative and rigging of the prices by certain entities which included Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt also and his entities which was controlled by him through which he has provided accommodation entry. This factor alone substantiates and corroborates the initial investigation in the case of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt wherein he has admitted that he was providing accommodation entry and has explained the entire modus operandi. Though later on he has refracted his statement by way of an affidavit and assessee's objection was that since he was not allowed to be cross examined, therefore, his statement cannot be relied upon. In such cases, the statement alone is not edifice for making the addition but catena of various factors and circumstances surrounding the transaction as such needs to be taken into account. If the SEBI itself after considering the entire facts and materials on record and investigation and even the submissions of the various persons and entities have found that these persons/entities have manipulated the prices and after providing accommodation entry including the exit providers who were involved assisting in purchasing of the shares from various persons. If this finding is corroborated by the other factors which has been referred and relied upon by the department as noted above, we cannot put blinkers in our eyes on these factors and material coming on record and simply because assessee adduced certain documents for purchase and sale of shares does not make the transaction genuine.

……………………………

……………………………
The financials and its credibility have been discussed in detail by the SEBI in its order. This factor definitely creates suspicion about the entire transaction In such cases, it is not necessary that there statement or any document. What needs to be seen that immediate and proximate facts and circumstances surrounding the whole event which has been found during the course of investigation by the agencies and specially here in this case SEBI.
Here, it is not the case that simply based on some investigation and some statement of a broker that he has dealt in particular scrip for providing accommodation entry is the basis for making the addition. Albeit, the main concerned person who was hand in gloves for manipulating the price of the shares has also stated that he was an entry provider for bogus long term capital gain in M/s. Sunrise Asian Ltd

Even though he has reiterated or he has not been subjected to cross examine but later on when SEBI gave opportunity of these entities including Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt and they were unable to substantiate or explain the case that they had not done any fraud or manipulation for manipulating the price in the stock market.
The SEBI has categorically noted that how in various patches prices were rigged and who were entities involved during those periods and all these persons/noticees were directly or indirectly involved in purchase and sale of shares acting as exit providers were also rigging all the prices. Thus, without there any cross examination also it cannot be held that Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt was not involved or his conduct later on found by agencies should be ignored simply because assessee was not allowed cross examination. As stated above, his statement alone is not the entire basis for the addition but there are other catena of factors and circumstances as discussed above including abnormal rise of the price and later on subject to ban by SEBI on this scrip and also later no trading of the shares took place as the price failed to such a low, that post 2017 there has been no trading at all.

Even though SEBI has adjudicated this issue post passing of the id. CIT (A) order, however, now it has been brought on record that the entire trading of the shares in the stock market was only a fraud to provide accommodation entries by these persons to the parties who had approach them to provide accommodation entry.
This factor is crucial to induct the assessee also that it is not a simple purchase and sale of shares in a bonafide manner in the open market. Even though, there cannot be any direct evidence against the assessee, but all these factors do cast a shadow on test of genuineness of the transaction which requires juridical frown and condemnation. The assessee cannot act bonafide merely relying upon the documents in their hands to contend that transactions were genuine. The test of genuinety has to be seen on principles of 'preponderance of probabilities' and here all the factors show that there is nothing genuine about this transaction.
The company which does not have any significant value before such high rise in stock exchange and later on it vanishes from trading, ostensibly goes to show that it was nothing but a paper/sham company as trading was among selected few with predetermined exit providers to provide accommodation entry to few beneficiaries, which was revealed from the inquiry and adjudication order of SEBI and this fact was also found by the income tax department in the course of the search conducted on the key entry operator of these shares. At this point it would be relevant to refer and rely upon the ratio and the Hon'ble Calcutta high Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj

………………………………
………………………………

We are not going into details of various judgments wherein additions have been deleted on this scrip of M/s. Sunrise Asian
Ltd and statement of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt has been discarded on the ground assessee was not given cross examination. We have given our finding based on various other factors and the most crucial one, the order of the SEBI brought on record before us wherein there is detailed investigation and enquiry and finding in the case of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. and how various other entities and persons connected with the manipulation and rigging of the prices in the stock exchange recommend to provide, accommodation entry. Thus, the addition of Rs. 2,70,01,771/- made u/s 68 is confirmed

(Emphasis provided)

It is also noted that in the present case of the appellant, only the form of the transactions was existing which had been done by creating the necessary documents but the financial result of Splash Media does not justify the steep escalation in the price of its shares. Therefore, the AO had justifiably looked into the real nature of transactions and the intention behind undertaking the impugned transactions.

Since, as has been mentioned above, SEBI has held that all markets trades between October 16, 2012 to September 30, 2015 were controlled by the indicted parties and were manipulated, the appellant's case also falling under the same time period, the counter-parties being among those who have been held guilty of manipulation by SEBI, &
Hon'ble juri ictional ITAT of appellant at Mumbai having held the issue against the assessees in similar circumstances, the appellant's transactions cannot be accepted as genuine.

Thus, the case of the appellant is easily distinguishable from the decisions cited by the appellant wherein the decisions pertained to period prior to landmark decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court & High
Court in cases cited above and in subsequent paragraphs on issue of transactions in penny stocks where a cartel of persons has manipulated the scrip to help the beneficiaries evade taxes through ostensible paper maze of banking system and stock market.

Even otherwise, SEBI has held that all trades in scrip of Sunrise Asian between October 16, 2012 to September 30, 2015 were manipulated by the entities controlled by accommodation entry providers including Vipul
Vidur Bhatt & hence, such plea of the assessees has been rejected by Hon'ble Tribunal in the cases of beneficiaries of this scrip as discussed in earlier paras of this order.

It has also been held in case of Swati Bajaj & others (supra) that the assessee was not named in the report but when the assessee makes the claim for exemption the onus of proof is on the assessee to prove the genuinity and the assessees cannot be permitted to contend that the assessments were based on surmises and conjectures or presumptions or assumptions. It was also held that the assessee does not and cannot dispute the fact that the shares of the companies which they have dealt with were insignificant in value prior to their trading. If such is the situation, it is the assessee who has to establish that the price rise was genuine and consequently they are entitled to claim LTCG on their transaction. Until and unless the initial burden cast upon the assessee is discharged, the onus does not shift to the revenue to prove otherwise.
It is incorrect to argue that the assessees have been called upon to prove the negative in fact, it is the assessees duty to establish that the rise of the price of shares within a short period of time was a genuine move that those penny stocks companies had credit worthiness and coupled with genuinity and identity. The assesses cannot be heard to say that their claim has to be examined only based upon the documents produced by them namely bank details, the purchase/sell documents, the details of the D-Mat Account etc. The assesses have lost sight of an important fact that when a claim is made for LTCG or STCL, the onus is on the assessee to prove that credit worthiness of the companies whose shares the assessee has dealt with, the genuineness of the price rise which is undoubtedly alarming that to within a short span of time.

(i) Suman Poddar [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC): In this case, the assessee had purchased 15000 shares of M/s Smartchamps IT and Infra Ltd. (which was merged with M/s Cressanda Solutions Ltd.) through cheque payments in September 2011 (FY 2011-12) directly by filing application for allotment with the company at face value of Rs.
10/- per share. The shares were received in demat account on 05/07/2013 of the assessee and were sold between July to September
2013 earning a gain of about Rs.75, 19,505/- which was claimed by the assessee as exempt LTCG u/s 10(38) of the I.T. Act. AO found that this was a penny stock which had been also mentioned in investigation report of the Department, the share prices had jumped up without any rationale within a period of few months. The assessee had sought to justify the claim and genuineness of transactions stating that the transactions were through banking channels, demat accounts, STT had been paid, the purchase was not questioned in earlier year by the AO and sale was through stock exchange.

Hon'ble ITAT & High Court had upheld the denial of exemption u/s 10(38) & upheld action of the AO in treating the transaction as bogus.
Hon'ble High Court had dealt with the issue of cross-examination also in this case and held as below:

'4.1 I have considered the submission of the appellant and observation of the AO made in the assessment order on the issue.
The appellant has stated that it has not been allowed cross- examination of parties on the basis of whose statement, the addition has been made. On this issue it is observed from the assessment record that the AO has made the addition on the strength of independent analysis of the documents to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove genuineness of the transaction in respect of STCL as discussed above.
Statements and other material found in the course of investigation has been used by him as a corroborative material to strengthen his findings. As per the requirement of section 68 of the Act, the AO has shifted the onus back on the appellant by confronting the adverse findings Therefore, the appellant has failed to discharge the onus cast upon it u/s 68 of the Act to explain the transaction
The Investigation Wing has conducted detailed enquiries, made analysis of the seized/impounded documents and made analysis of beneficiaries. The report prepared contains details of complete modus operandi, commission charged against accommodation entries, list of conduit companies, list of their bank accounts in the name of conduits. The said list contains names of companies in which the appellant dealt.
Therefore, the findings in the case of Investigation wing corroborate the independent findings of the AO. Therefore, the AO was not required to allow the appellant the opportunity to cross- examine."

SLP filed against above decision of Suman Poddar (supra) was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is noted here that facts of case of present appellant are similar to this case. The appellant had purchased shares in off-market transactions via banking channel which were dematerialized subsequently and were sold through a broker on stock exchange platform earning irrational and unexplained gains to her.

(ii) Nand Kishore Agarwala [2022] 143 taxmann.com 402 (Calcutta):
Where assessee had stage managed transactions of sale of shares with object to plough back his unaccounted income in form of fictitious long- term capital gains (LTCG) and claim bogus exemption under section 10(38), such exemption denied by Assessing Officer by way of treating bogus LTCG in penny stock under purview of unexplained cash under section 68 was justified.

(iii) Sanjay Kaul [2020] 119 taxmann.com 470 (Delhi): The appellant had purchased shares of three penny stocks, Cressanda Solutions Ltd,
Kailash Auto Finance Ltd & Matra Kaushal Enterprise Ltd on which he had claimed LTCG & STCL. Assessee argues that there was no possibility of any nexus between buying and selling brokers since the appellant carried out transactions through registered broker from platform of Bombay Stock Exchange via banking channels and had received in/transferred shares through demat account and that the AO had not rebutted the documentary evidences of demat account, bank statement, contract notes etc. Hon'ble High Court had observed as under:

"After describing the general modus operandi of accommodation entry by way of bogus capital gain/loss, the Assessing Officer has highlighted the statement of the persons who claimed to have provided bogus capital gain/loss entries. The assessee was then asked to justify the investment in the relevant shares. The Assessing Officer has pointed out that these companies are not having any significant/real business as seen from the financial statement of those companies. The price movement of the shares was also found to be unrealistic by him. The Assessing Officer has particularly pointed out that price movement of the relevant shares transacted by the assessee, were not matching with movement of the share market in general and movement of the other scripts in the same line of the business. The Assessing
Officer also pointed out that volume transacted in those script was also very low. There was no history of dividend payout by those companies. The id. Assessing Officer has pointed out that the assessee could not explain, why it invested in such script without knowing the financial performance of the company. The relevant analysis has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in Para 3.4 (Page-1 J.) of the assessment order."

Hon'ble High Court had upheld Hon'ble ITAT Delhi's decision which had dismissed appeal of the assessee relying upon facts of the unexplained
& unrealistic rise in prices of these scrips in a short span of time, their weak financial position, report of stock exchange hallmarks the investigation wing and had held that banking transactions, demat account and use of transaction. platform cannot be taken of a genuine

The case of present appellant is also similar to this case as he has also sought to defend his claim using the smokescreen of banking channel, demat account and stock exchange platform without explaining as to how he came to know about the financial potential of the impugned scrip when the balance sheets, turnover and past history showed that any prudent investor would not go anywhere near this scrip.

(iv) Udit Kalra ITA 220/2019 & CM No. 10774/2019 dated 08/01/2019
(Delhi High Court): The assessee had purchased shares of penny stock
Kappac Pharma in off-market transactions at very nominal price. The shares were later received in demat format and sold subsequently on stock exchange. Relying upon the report of Investigation Wing, the fact of off-market purchase, the irrational hike in prices of the scrip within a short span of time had weighed heavily with the Hon'ble High Court who upheld that the transactions were bogus and LTCG claim was denied

(v) Sanjay Bimalchand Jain [2018] 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay):
Where assessee had purchased shares of penny stocks companies at lesser amount and within a year sold such shares at much higher amount and assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how shares in an unknown company had jumped to such higher amount in no time and also failed to provide details of person who purchased said shares, said transactions were attempt to hedge undisclosed income as Long-term Capital gain.
(vi) Saroj Baid [2023] 155 taxmann.com 630 (Kolkata Trib.): During F.Y.
2008-09, the assessee purchased 33800 equity shares of NCL Research and Financial Services Limited @ Rs. 2/- per share and total purchase price was at Rs. 67,600/-. Assessee contended that purchase and sale of shares were supported by proper contract notes, deliveries of shares were made through demat accounts maintained with various agencies, the shares were purchased and sold through recognized broker and the sale considerations were received by account payee cheques. During FY
2012-13, the assessee sold 26,000 shares of NCL Research and Financial Services Limited for a consideration of Rs. 69,39,029/- thereby earning long-term capital gain of Rs. 68,87,029/-, The AO held the same as bogus/sham transactions considering the report of Investigation wing of Kolkata, the unexplained price rice in penny stock and preponderance of human probabilities. Hon'ble Tribunal upheld the order of the AO.

(vii) Rohit Agarwal (ITA No.1939/Kol/2018, AY 2014-15, decision dated
05/06/2023), Hon'ble ITAT has held as below:

"Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 31.07.2014 reporting total income of Rs. 39,43,860/-, In the course of assessment proceedings, Ld. AO noted that assessee has purchased shares of Ashika Credit Capital Ltd. through broker Globe Capital Market Ltd, 609, Ansal Bhavan, 16, K. G.
Marg, New Delhi.
………………………………
………………………………

Assessee made a significant gain within a span of few months amounting to Rs 45,04,187/-, Ld. AO called for the explanation in respect of gains earned by the assessee on these share transactions which has been identified as a penny stock After considering the submissions made by the assessee, Ld. AO observed that extensive survey operation was carried out by Director of Income tax (Inv.), Kolkata into some brokers of Kolkata.
In their statement, they in turn accepted to have provided accommodation entries of short term capital gains. In this list of shares, Ashika Credit Capital Ltd (in short ACCL) also found its name.

Thus, Ld. AO concluded that assessee has introduced/credited capital of Rs 46,97,718/- during the year in his books, the shares of which he explained as proceeds from sale of shares. By holding that the explanation offered by the assesses as unsatisfactory, Ld. AO added the amount of Rs.46,97,718/- as income being unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act (taxable
@ as provided u/s. 115BBE of the Act)

Ld. AO also made an addition of Rs. 1,17,443/- being 2.5% of Rs.46,97,718/- towards commission for getting bogus short-term capital gain as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act
Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

We find that there are large number of assessees, who have transacted with such kind of equity shares and claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Act. Apart from this scrip, there are other scrips also in Kolkata, who were found to be penny stock and transactions on papers only.
Hon'ble
Juri ictional Calcutta High Court has recently considered this aspect in its judgment in the case of Swati Bajaj & Others (2022)
139 taxmann.com 352(Cal), In a number of appeals, we have also rejected the claim of the assessees, where the assessee transacted in such shares. All these transactions with common modus operandi have been held as bogus by the Hon'ble
Juri ictional High Court. Therefore, respectfully following and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court
(supra), we are of the view that Revenue Authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the assessee and made the additions. We do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed."

(viii) Krishna Devi ITA 6356/Del/2019 dated 04/01/2022: Hon'ble
ITAT, Delhi had the occasion to decide upon similar issue of bogus LTCG claim on a similar penny stock scrip as the present appellant and upheld AO's order.

(ix) Sanat Kumar [2020] 122 taxmann.com 75 (Delhi Trib.): Where assessee purchased and sold shares of a company which was engaged in providing bogus entries in form of LTCG and STCG and assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction, alleged LTCG earned by assessee on such shares was rightly brought to tax under section 68 of the Act.

On this issue, it is noted that once the transaction has been held as bogus and sham, it is a natural corollary that the appellant had paid some amount to the accommodation entry providers to arrange such elaborate entries.

In case of Abhishek Gupta [2023] 147 taxmann.com 21 (Indore-Trib.), also discussed in preceding paragraphs of this order, Hon'ble Tribunal had held under circumstances similar to that of the appellant that "AO has made this addition on the premise that the assessee must have certainly incurred expenditure @ 2% of Rs. 64,58,
168/- in paying commission/charges to the persons engaged for arranging bogus capital gain. We observe that the amount added by Ld. AO is reasonable and it does not call for any interference by us."

In case of Rohit Agarwal (ITA No.1939/Kol/2018, AY 2014-15, decision dated purchased and sold shares of a company which was engaged in providing bogus entries in form of LTCG and STCG and assessee failed to prove genuineness of transaction, alleged LTCG earned by assessee on such shares was rightly brought to tax under section 68 of the Act.

On this issue, it is noted that once the transaction has been held as bogus and sham, it is a natural corollary that the appellant had paid elaborate entries.

In case of Abhishek Gupta [2023] 147 taxmann.com 21 (Indore-Trib.), also discussed in preceding paragraphs of this order, Hon'ble Tribunal had held under circumstances similar to that of the appellant that "AO has made this addition on the premise that the assessee must have certainly incurred expenditure @ 2% of Rs. 64,58, 168/- in paying commission/charges to the persons engaged for arranging bogus capital gain. We observe that the amount added by Ld. AO is reasonable and it does not call for any interference by us."

In case of Rohit Agarwal (ITA No.1939/Kol/2018, AY 2014-15, decision dated 6.5 Ground no. 6 & 7: These grounds are general in nature and do not require separate adjudication.

Mumbai, Dated 17/02/2025

KRK, Sr. PS

आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
सािपत ित ////