आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘एसएमसी’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA Įी संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय एवं Įी मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A No.1738/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 Trident Commercial Pvt. Ltd...................................................................Appellant Room 408A, 25A, Camac Street, W.B-700016. [PAN: AAACT9662L] vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata.................................................................Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 15, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : May 01, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग[, ÛयाǓयक सदèय ɮवारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.05.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. This appeal was listed on board on 03.12.2019 and thereafter, it has been fixed for almost more than 25 times. Earlier, there was no response from the assessee/appellant to the notices of hearing issued by the Tribunal on various dates. However, on certain dates Shri Somnath Ghosh appeared on behalf of the assessee and requested for adjournments which were accordingly granted. However, from the last I.T.A No.1738/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 Trident Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2 four dates, no one put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite notices sent through registered post as well as electronically at the email address provided by the assessee. Today, the Bench Clerk was asked to contact Shri Somnath Ghosh and appraise about the hearing of this appeal to which Shri Ghosh pleaded no instructions. Since, despite several notices sent to the assessee through registered post as well as served electronically on email, no one has put in appearance, therefore, it can be well assumed that the assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the present appeal. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits after hearing the ld. DR. 3. With the assistance of the ld. DR, we have gone through the record and note that the issue involved in this appeal is relating to the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.7,43,630/- by treating the share trading loss, claimed as short-term capital loss by the assessee, as bogus. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee company had sold the shares of ASHIKACR company and booked the aforesaid loss and the said company was found to be penny stock company created for the purpose of booking bogus capital gains/capital loss by the Investigation Wing. The issue of booking of bogus capital gains/loss in penny stock companies has come into consideration before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj & Ors reported in [2022] 139 taxmann.com 352 (Calcutta), wherein, the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has set aside the order of the Tribunal and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer in cases of capital gains/loss booked in the penny stock companies treating the said transaction as bogus. The said decision has been further followed in the various decisions of the Tribunal. In the case in hand before us, the company in I.T.A No.1738/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 Trident Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 3 which the assessee traded was also held to be a penny stock company. The Assessing Officer has noted that the above scrip of ASHIKACR in which the assessee traded appeared in the list of 84 scrip involved in dubious transaction identified by the Investigation Wing. The said report of the Investigation Wing has been duly taken note by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court. In view of this, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra) against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Moreover, despite granting many opportunities, the assessee has failed to respond to any of the notices and, therefore, the reasonable presumption is that the assessee has nothing to say after the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra) by which the issue in the appeal of the assessee is squarely covered. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee and the same is accordingly dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Kolkata, the 1 st May, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [डॉÈटर मनीष बोरड /Dr. Manish Borad] [संजय गग[ /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सदèय /Accountant Member ÛयाǓयक सदèय /Judicial Member Dated:01.05.2023. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Trident Commercial Pvt. Ltd 2. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), I.T.A No.1738/Kol/2019 Assessment year: 2014-15 Trident Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 4 //True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches