MANJULA KOTHARI,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-10(3), CHENNAI

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTATN MEMBER:

gained unlawfully by not paying taxes on their unaccounted money. The Revenue recovered evidences with regard to the bogus nature of such transactions, based upon such information, the Assessing Officer reopened the cases of the assessees. The AO after examining the assessees book of accounts, the number of transactions, the various contents in the statement recorded from Shri. Mukesh Choksi etc held that since the transaction entered into by the assessee with M/s. Alliance Intermediateries and Network Pvt Ltd, the company which has been identified as bogus one etc held that the evidences furnished by the assessees loose authenticity and therefore, the AO treated the deposit amount of the assessees as unexplained credit/investment and completed the assessments. Aggrieved, the above assessees filed appeals before the CIT(A).

Based upon the assessees submission, the Ld. CIT(A) called for remand reports from the AOs. After considering the assessees comments on the remand reports and after considering the assessees explanation etc on the remand report, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved against those orders, the above assessees filed these appeals with common ground of appeals. Therefore, as a model, the grounds of appeal in the case of Smt. Manjula Kothari is extracted as under:

“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous, illegal, opposed to facts and is liable to be reversed. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in upholding the jurisdiction of the AO to re-open the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act insofar as there is no tangible material brought on record to show the escapement of income, so as to invoke the extended period of limitation to re-open the assessment.

& 38/Chny/2020 :- 4 -:

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to see that there has been gross violation of principles of natural justice in so far as the statement from the broker, upon which the entire assessment is based, was never furnished to the appellant at any stage of the assessment proceedings. This renders the entire assessment null and void. 4.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in denying exemption u/s. 10(38) and confirming the addition of Rs. 6,77,281/- as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider the detailed evidences that were produced to show the genuineness of purchase and sale of shares, including bills, STT certificates and that the transaction was made through the Calcutta Stock Exchange. 4.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that Securities Transaction Tax (STT) was suffered even on the purchase of shares and the purchase consideration was made through banking channel. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the fact that the name of the assessee is not mentioned in the list provided by the broker which was alleged wrongly by the learned Assessing Officer. 6. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in relying upon case laws that are wholly distinguishable on law and facts. 7. That the learned company has failed to notice that the learned Assessing Officer has not followed the decision of the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to bring on record the role of the assessee in promoting the company and inflating the share price of the company. 8. The appellant craves leave for any other additional grounds that may be abused or permitted to be abused at the time of the hearing.”

assessees cases. After affording adequate opportunity to the assessees and taking into account the sworn statement recorded from Shri. Mukesh Choksi that M/s. Alliance Intermediateries and Network Pvt Ltd, was one such brokering company which issued bogus bills for accommodation entries and with whom the assessees had entered into transactions etc, the AO treated the deposit of the assessees as an unexplained credit/ investment, as the case may be, and assessed the same under the head other source. Aggrieved, the assessees filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO, furnished the same to the assessees and after considering the respective assessee’s explanation, material etc dismissed the appeals on the following lines:

“14. The appeal is decided against the assessee not just based on the facts reported by the Investigation Wing, but on my considered finding that the pattern of transactions in this case, clearly point out that the transaction is sham and the test of preponderance of probability is applied in the absence of any credible evidence from the part of the appellant to prove his case. It is clear from the transaction that the company of unknown credentials and a track record of poor performance cannot in normal circumstances fetch such higher share prices.

& 38/Chny/2020 :- 6 -:

Since, the assessees have not disputed the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) with relevant material before the Hon’ble Tribunal, the ld. DR pleaded that these appeals be dismissed.

Order pronounced on 24th June, 2021 at Chennai.