Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg&Shri Girish Agrawal]
आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.12.2022 of the 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 appeal is time barred by 270 days. A separate application for condonation of delay has been filed. Considering the submissions made in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Assessment Years: 2012-13 Goldwin Fincom Pvt. Ltd. 3. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal:
1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the reasons recorded by the Ld. AO are invalid and improper and as such, the reassessment frame vide order dated 03.12.2019 is bad in the eyes of law.
2. For that the re-assessment order dated 03.12.2019 is vitiated in law in as much as there was absolutely no independent application of mind and no independent enquiry on the part of the AO in respect of the purported information allegedly received by him. 3.(a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 8,13,375/- made by the AO on account of the alleged sale proceeds of shares of Aricent Infra Ltd. (b) For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciated that the assessee had duly informed the AO that no transaction had been carried out by the assessee in the alleged penny scrip, Aricent Infra Ltd. and that the request of the assessee to provide details of alleged transaction was never acceded to. 4. For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of the returned loss of Rs. 4,15,414/-. 5. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds of appeal or alter the grounds at the time of hearing.
The assessee in this appeal has contested the validity of the reopening of assessment u/s 147 read with Section 148 of the Act.
Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer (in short the “AO”) received an information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had made bogus transactions in the shares of Aricent Infra Ltd. during the year which was Assessment Years: 2012-13 Goldwin Fincom Pvt. Ltd. a penny stock company and that the assessee thereby has booked and has received a sum of Rs. 8,13,375/- as accommodation entry. He, on the basis of information, issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee filed objection against the said reopening of the assessment stating there in that the assessee has not carried out any transaction in the shares of the alleged penny stock company Aricent Infra Ltd.. The assessee requested the AO to verify the records available with him and also supply the copy to the assessee for cross- verification. The AO however, without considering the objection of the assessee, reopened the assessment and framed the impugned assessment, thereby he not only made an addition of Rs. 8,13,375/- on account of receipt of bogus sale of shares but also disallowed the disclosed loss of Rs. 4,15,414/-.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In the appeal, the assessee reiterated its submissions which have also been reproduced in the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) without going through the aforesaid submissions and despite the legal ground of the assessee that the AO has failed to consider and dispose off the objections filed by the assessee against the reopening of the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
We have heard rival submissions and gone through the record. The assessee since beginning has categorically pleaded that the assessee has not Assessment Years: 2012-13 Goldwin Fincom Pvt. Ltd. done any transaction in the share of alleged penny stock company Aricent Infra Ltd.. The assessee also filed objections to the AO in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act agitated against the validity of the reopening of the assessment. The assessee also took the same plea before the Ld. CIT(A). However both the lower authorities have failed to consider the objections of the assessee. The Ld. D.R could not point out any evidence and failed to prove that the assessee has dealt with in bogus sale of shares has alleged by the Ld. AO. In view of this, the reopening of the assessment as well as the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act is held as bad in law and the same is hereby quashed and resultantly the additions made during the said reopened assessment are ordered to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 9th February, 2024