PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 44, KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” (Virtual Court Hearing), BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pawan Kumar Gupta.….……..............……………………….……Appellant C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [PAN: AEBPG7395H] vs. ACIT, Circle-44, Kolkata……….…..………………...………..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Gautam Mondal, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 02, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : February 02, 2022 Hearing through Video Conferencing ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 26.08.2021 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1.For that the re-assessment framed u/s. 147/ 143(3) is void and nullity before the eyes of law as there are no recorded reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 2 For that without prejudice to ground no. 2 as stated above, the recorded reasons are invalid and improper and as such, the reassessment framed is bad in the eyes of law.

3. For that the re-assessment is vitiated in law in the absence of approval / proper approval as envisaged u/s 151.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pawan Kumar Gupta 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 9.21,000/- made by the A.O. as unexplained cash credit w/s 68 on account of alleged Long Term Capital Gains.

or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.”

2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has stated at bar that the impugned additions have been made by the Assessing Officer by treating the long-term capital gains shown by the assessee as bogus alleging that the assessee has traded in the shares of M/s Blue Print Securities Limited which was a penny stock company and thereby the assessee booked bogus long-term capital gains out of unaccounted income of the assessee. The ld. counsel has brought my attention to the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for reopening of the assessment as well as to the impugned assessment order, wherein, it has been alleged that the assessee has dealt in penny stock company namely M/s Blue Print Securities Limited and booked the bogus long-term capital gains.

The ld. counsel has further invited my attention to page 38 of paper-book which is the copy of the reply and objections filed by the assessee to the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, wherein, the assessee has categorically submitted that the assessee during the assessment year under consideration has not dealt with i.e neither sold nor purchased any shares of the alleged company namely M/s Blue Print Securities Limited. The ld. counsel has further invited my attention to the assessment order to show that the Assessing Officer without considering the above plea of the assessee went on to frame the assessment in a mechanical manner. The ld. counsel has further invited my attention to the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A), wherein also, the assessee had taken a categorical stand that the assessee has not dealt Assessment Year: 2012-13 Pawan Kumar Gupta with in the alleged script during the assessment year under consideration. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Assessing Officer without considering the above submissions. The ld. DR could not point out as to how both the lower authorities were justified in making the impugned additions when the assessee has taken a categorical stand that he has not dealt in the alleged script. It shows that the impugned assessment order as well as the order of the ld. CIT(A) have been passed in a mechanical manner without even considering the facts of the file. The impugned additions thus are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the impugned additions are ordered to be deleted.