“human probabilities”

ITO, WD-6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Tritium Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2008-09 Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Kolkata.………......……….........…………..………….…................Appellant Vs. M/S. Tritium Commodities………..........….……...........…………..……………….…...……..…….......Respondent 7, Babulal Lane Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aacct 8286 G] Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 6Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 28Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 15/10/2015, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Investment In Shares & Securities. For The Assessment Year 2012-13, It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2017, Disclosing Nil Income. It Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09, On 22/10/2008, Declaring Total Loss Or Rs.14,726/-. The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act, On 24/06/2010. Thereafter The Ld. Cit(A), Passed An Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Setting Aside The Assessment Order Dt. 24/06/2010. The Assessing Officer Passed The Impugned Fresh Order In Pursuance To The Order U/S 263 Of The Act, Dt. 31/03/2014, Making An Addition Of The Share Application Money Of Rs.2.07 Crores U/S 68 Of The Act. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Deleted The Addition For The Reasons Given In His Order.

further quoted during the course of hearing that the relevant evidence submitted during the course of assessment has to be considered as per the human probabilities by removing all blinkers. Our attention is thereafter invited to the relevant nuances of such share subscription routing involving multiple layers to plough back

D.D. Agarwal (HUF), Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 D.D. Agarwal (Huf).................................….……...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Appellant 1E, Burman Street 4Th Floor Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aachd 9146 A] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-34(3), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…............Respondent

upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 D.D. Agarwal (HUF) “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding have been given on this

Shashi Bala Bajaj, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shashi Bala Bajaj………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite-213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700 107 [Pan : Adypb 2120 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(2), Kolkata..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 31St, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 27Th June, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Surabhi Chemical & Investments Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding have been given on this

Naina Dhanania, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 46(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Naina Dhanania.......................................….……...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Appellant 34/2, Madhusuda Paul Chowdhury Lane Kadamtala Howrah- 711101 [Pan : Arjpd 8338 C] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-46(4), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…............Respondent

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding have been given on this

Ram Pratap Dhanania (HUF), Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 48(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ram Pratap Dhanania Huf................….……...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Appellant 34/2, Madhusuda Paul Chowdhury Lane Kadamtala Howrah- 711101 [Pan : Aaihr 2214 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-48(1), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…............Respondent

upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ram Pratap Dhanania “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding have been given on this

Smt. Uma Parasramka, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Uma Parasramka...........................….……...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Appellant Ground Floor Room No. Gx Hastings Chambers 7C, Kiran Shankar Roy Road Kolkata- 700 001 [Pan : Agapp 8466 B ] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(4), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…............Respondent

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding have been given on this

Smt. Nalini Bothra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 35(3), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2014-15

that the winning tickets were purchased by the appellant after the event. The majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities had rightly concluded that the appellant's claim about the amount being her winning from races, was not genuine. It could not be said ... appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert

Sri Samir Baid, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 36(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Samir Baid………………..............................….……...........…………..……………….…...……..….…….......Appellant 3-B, Lal Bazar Street 5Th Floor Kolkata- 700 001 [Pan : Aeipb 5692 K] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(3), Kolkata.……......……….........…………..………….…............Respondent

upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and 2 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Samir Baid “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding have been given on this

Riddhi Siddhi Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(1), Kolkata

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2012-13

Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More[1971] 82 ITR 540 at pages 545-547 made a reference to the test of human probabilities In the following fact situation:- It is true that an apparent must be considered real until It Is shown that there are reasons to believe ... highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be Ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AD Is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Sri Mahendra Kumar Jhawar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(4), Kolkata

In the result all these appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1428/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sri Mahendra Kumar Jhawar………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant 14/2, 3Rd Floor Flat No. 213-223 Old China Bazar Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Acqpj 8735 R] Income Tax Officer, Ward 35(4), Kolkata…………………..……………………....………..Respondent

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that the decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. The Benches have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding are given on this

Amrita Baid, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amrita Baid.......................………………………...........…………..………………………………..….…….......Appellant 3-B, Lal Bazar Street 5Th Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Afqpk 5126 A] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-34(2), Kolkata.……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Paras Nath Keshari, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 11Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 9Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 21/09/2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Srk Industries Ltd. & M/S Tuni Textile Mills Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Reena Poddar, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result this appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 2331/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Reena Poddar…....…………….…………….….....……………………………………………....….……..Appellant C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane 2Nd Floor Suite-213 Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Aeppp 5340 H] Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(1), Kolkata…….........……..……………………....………..Respondent

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No