“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,584 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO (329 ITR 110), cited in 217 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO

329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court

217

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani

69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported

142

citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT

394 ITR 146 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 cannot be initiated by the Assessing Officer based on borrowed satisfaction, vague information from the Investigation Wing, or incorrect jurisdictional facts without independent application of mind. Reopening beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, especially where an original assessment was completed under section 143(3), requires specific conditions relating to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

PCIT v. M/s. Kesoram Industries 57

417 ITR 334 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessment completed under Section 143(3) cannot be reopened after four years solely based on third-party information or opinions, such as from an Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer applying their own independent mind to the material and having new, independent material on record.

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur

224 ITR 362 · 1997 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Information received from the investigation wing constitutes valid 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, provided the Assessing Officer applies their mind to the material and does not act mechanically. Prompt issuance of a notice based on such information does not automatically imply a lack of due diligence or borrowed satisfaction.

AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner

197 Taxmann 177 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

A reassessment under Section 147/148 is valid if initiated based on specific, non-vague information, even from an investigation wing, provided the Assessing Officer applies independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment.

56 (Guj.) (para 6) v. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT

83 Taxmann.com 82 · 2017 · High Court

citing judgments

Information received from the Investigation Wing, identifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries through share application from a third party, constitutes valid tangible material and 'reasons to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Aradhna Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

91 Taxmann.com 119 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer is justified in reopening assessment proceedings based on information received from the Investigation Wing, even when recording findings also rely on documents already on record, provided all procedural requirements for reassessment are met.

Judgments citing investigation wing

ITO - 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Darshan Arvind Sanghvi, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4973/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4973/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Income Tax Officer-27(1)(4) Darshan Arvind Sanghvi बनाम/ Tower 6, 4Th Floor 2/21, Kanji Mistry Building, Room No.409, Vashi Railway Station Complex, 2, Sanghani Estate Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai. Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400 077. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ancps-1673-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Ms. Radha Halbe-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

returned income of Rs.3.10 Lacs filed by the assessee on 15/06/2009 which was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing / Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.8.12 Lacs from

ITO 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dinesh Ramji Bhanushali, Navi Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4972/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

returned income of Rs.1.45 Lacs filed by the assessee on 29/09/2009 which was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing / Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee 3 A.Y. 2009-10 Dinesh Ramji Bhanushali stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases

ITO- 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dairy Udyog, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4969/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

returned income of Rs.5.10 Lacs filed by the assessee on 23/09/2009 which was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing / Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.0.69 Lacs from

ITO - 27(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Deepak Nalin Ashar, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 4968/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4968/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Income Tax Officer-27(1)(4) Deepak Nalin Ashar Tower 6, 4Th Floor 144-2923/202, C-Wing, Prem Smruti बनाम/ 6Th Road, Behind Rajawadi Hospital Room No.409 Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi, Ghatkopar (E) Navi Mumbai. Mumbai-400 077. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrpa-5751-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Shri Jayant R. Bhatt-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R. Bhatt-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

returned income of Rs.3.95 Lacs filed by the assessee on 11/08/2010 which was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing / Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.3.28 Lacs from

Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1729/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1729/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1730/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Shri Dineshkumar C. Doshi Income Tax Officer-19(1)(4) Room No.222, 2Nd Floor, Prop. Jagruti Metal Industries बनाम/ Office No.305, 3Rd Floor Matru Mandir Vs. 13/12, Virchand Umershway B-3Rd Tardeo Road Panjrapole Lane, C.P. Tank, Mumbai 400 004. Mumbai-400 007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ahmpd-4114-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal-Ld. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 234BSection 27l

returned income of Rs.3.64 Lacs filed by the assessee on 21/09/2010 which was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing / Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.66.05 Lacs from ... certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO was clinched with tangible material in the shape of information from investigation wing / Sales Tax Department which, prima- facie, suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Nothing more was required at this stage

Shri Lalit N. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1397/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1397/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Shri Lalit N. Shah Income Tax Officer-19(2)(1) बनाम/ Prop. Of M/S. Shah Impex Room No.218, Matru Mandir 82/84, Kika Street, 2Nd Floor Tardeo Road Vs. Gulalwadi, Mumbai-400 004. Mumbai-400 077. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acdps-9498-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.Dr Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelal-Ld.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 09/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 09/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashutosh Rajhans-Ld.DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 27l

returned income of Rs.5.68 Lacs filed by the assessee on 27/09/2011 which was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from investigation wing / Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.92.99 Lacs from ... certain income escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AO was clinched with tangible material in the shape of information from investigation wing / Sales Tax Department which, prima- facie, suggested possible escapement of income in the hands of the assessee. Nothing more was required at this stage

DCIT Cen Cir 1(1), Mumbai vs. Arunkumar R Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2477/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Sept 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidcit, Central Circle-1(1) Vs. Arun Kumar R. Mehta Room No.903, 9Th Floor 1608, Prasad Chamber Old Cgo(Annexe) Behind Tbz, Opera House M.K.Road Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aabpm3327M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69A

source of the investment in the bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva of White Cedar Investment Ltd.. We further noted that the investigation wing of the Department issued letter to Mr. Dilip Ramniklal Mehta seeking an explanation in respect of the balance in bank account of White Cedar Investment

Nawal Kishore, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 47(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 1705/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 68

case and in law Learned AO has made subject addition without bringing incriminating material on record solely on hearsay borrowed satisfaction of investigating wing on a hypotheses of modus operandi at the macro level. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law learned AO has erred ... Assessing Officer was in possession of information from the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, Kolkata related to providing accommodation entry of exempted long-term capital gain on ‘Penny Stocks’ by a cartel of share brokers, entry operators, beneficiaries and proprietors in the scrip “Suchak Trading”, which was appearing

Satish Kishore, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 1704/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 68

Nisha, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Cir-9(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 875/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.406/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs The Acit, Shri Rajendra Kumar Hirawat, No.10, Monteith Road, Non-Corporate Circle – 23(1), Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 10Section 10(38)

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s. Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Rajendra Kumar Hirawat (HUF), Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 23(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 407/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 10Section 10(38)

Shri. Rajendra Kumar Hirawat, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 23 (1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 406/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 10Section 10(38)

Praveen Kumar Damayanthi, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 781/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Shri T.Pramod Kumar ChopdaFor Respondent: Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.R

Section 10(38)Section 40A(3)

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s.Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Usha Kothari, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-10(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 606/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.606/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT

stock broker, it is not known how the assessee entered into transaction fraudulently. The statement recorded at Kolkata and other material received from Kolkata Investigation Wing were not furnished to the assessee. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined after furnishing ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that

Ganpatraj Surana, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw -10(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 600/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.599 & 600/Chny/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Ganpatraj Surana, The Income Tax Officer, No.16, Trust Square Street, V. Non Corporate Ward 10(2), Ramalingapuram, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 012. Pan : Aavps 8410 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT

Section 10(38)

assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made 4 I.T.A. Nos.599 & 600/Chny/19 by the assessees in the penny stock company

Ganpatraj Surana, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw -10(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 599/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Sanath Kumar Raha, JCIT

Section 10(38)

Manish D Jain (HUF), Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 5(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for

ITA 2982/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2982/Chny/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S Manish D. Jain (Huf), The Income Tax Officer, No.56/4, Mulla Sahib Street, V. Non Corporate Ward - 5(3), 1St Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai - 600 006. Chennai - 600 079. Pan : Aajhm 6100 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri K. Hari Govind, JCIT

Section 10(38)

assessee involved in inflating the shares of the company. Moreover, the copy of the investigation report said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. On identical circumstances, this Tribunal in the case of Kanhaiyalal & Sons ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that

Pankaj Agarwal, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in the case of Shri Mukesh Agarwal and Shri Pankaj Agarwal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 768/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.R

Section 10(38)Section 40A(3)

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s.Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Mukesh Agarwal, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in the case of Shri Mukesh Agarwal and Shri Pankaj Agarwal are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 767/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr.N.Arjun Raj,AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan,JCIT,D.R

Section 10(38)Section 40A(3)

have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. Admittedly, the A.O received information from Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment of the assessee in penny stock company, namely, M/s.Concrete Credit Limited. The assessee also admittedly sold ... penny stock company. From the material available on record it appears that a copy of information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee. It is not brought on record the relationship of the assessee with the promoters

Saroj Mootha, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp Ward-6(3), Chennai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 423/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.423/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Saroj Mootha, 31, Chandrappa Mudali Street, Non Corporate Ward – 6(3), Chennai – 600 079. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. G.D. Jayanthi Angayarkanni, JCIT

Section 10Section 10(38)

subsequently earned a profit of LTCG and claimed it as an exempt income U/s.10(38). The Assessing Officer received a report from the investigation wing of Kolkata, in which, inter alia, the assessee was specified as one of the parties who indulged in bogus / non-genuine long term capital gain ... Representative also. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessees on the basis of the information said to be received from the Investigation Wing of the Department at Kolkata with regard to investment made by the assessees in the penny stock company. It is not in dispute that