Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8627 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-06-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
20-06-2019
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
21-12-2018
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH SMC KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S, GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.59/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 ANSHEJ SHAH LANSDOWN HEIGHT, FL-9A, 6, SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700020 [ PAN NO.BSAPS 7373 B ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(3), 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.31/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SRI SAURAV AGARWAL SUKHI SANSAR, 134, SALKIA SCHOOL ROAD, SALKIA, HOWRAH-711106 [ PAN NO.AIMPA 0244 N ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-63(2), 169, A.J.C BOSE ROAD, 9 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO.16, KOLKATA-14 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.60/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 SUNIL D SHAH LANSDOWN HEIGHT, FL-9A, 6, SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700020 [ PAN NO.AMAPS 3262 J ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(4), 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-54 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT PAGE 2 /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI PRAVASH ROY, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 17-06-2019 ITA NO.202/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 DEO CHAND SAMSUKHA, HUF, SHOP NO. B-17, GROUND FLOOR, 22, BONFIELD LANE, DALHOUSE, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AABHD 3531 L ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-34(3), 110, SHANTI PALLY, UTTARAPAN, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE & SHRI ARYAN KOCHAR, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI PRAVASH ROY, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 17-06-2019 ITA NO.204/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 KUNTAL PRASAD CHATTERJEE, 10, CLIVE ROW, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AESPC 9567 N ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-35(3), 110, SHANTIPALLY, 9 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SOUMITRA CHOUDHURY, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI PRAVASH ROY, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 17-06-2019 PAGE 3 ITA NO.1054/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 RINA SAHANA C/O S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEBEN BROTHERSLODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S.S CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY, PIN-712105 [ PAN NO.AKAPS 8048 N ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-23(4), AAYAKAR BHAWANA, G.T. ROAD, KHADINA MORE, P.O. & P.S. CHINSURAH, PIN 712101 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI PRAVASH ROY, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 17-06-2019 ITA NO.389/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 SUSHILA BAID C/O S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEBEN BROTHERSLODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S.S CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY, PIN-712105 [ PAN NO.AFHPB 1243 C ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-23(2), AAYAKAR BHAWANA, G.T. ROAD, KHADINA MORE, P.O. & P.S. CHINSURAH, PIN 712101 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE & SHRI M.K. SHAWAR, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI A.K. BANDHOPADHYA, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-06-2019 ITA NO.2604/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 PAGE 4 SMT. MUKTA AGARWAL 1, INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE, 1 ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.110, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.ABTPC 2278 G ] / V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-35, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-700 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SIDDHARTH JHAJHARIA, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI PRAVASH ROY, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 17-06-2019 ITA NO.23 & 24/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 BABITA AGARWAL 30, ADDITION BANSTALLA LANE, BURRA BAZAR, KOLKATA-700007 [ PAN NO.ADVPA 0277 H ] SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL P-6, MAJETI HOUSE, KALAKAR STREET, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA- 007 [ PAN NO.ACQPA 8886 J ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-43(4), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-001 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-45(2), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE MR. ANUJ MUSADDI, FCA & SHRI AAKASH KUMAR, FCA /BY REVENUE SHRI A.K. BANDHOPADHAY, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-06-2019 ITA NO.208 TO 210/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SUNITA SANGANERIA FLAT NO. 5D 24 PRINCE ANWAR SHAH ROAD, PAGE 5 KOLKATA-700033 [ PAN NO.AMAPS 0747 C ] SANJEEV SANGANERIA (HUF) FLAT NO. 5D 24 PRINCE ANWAR SHAH ROAD, KOLKATA-700 033 [ PAN NO.AAGHS 5554 M ] SANJEEV SANGANERIA FLAT NO. 5D 24 PRINCE ANWAR SHAH ROAD, KOLKATA-700 033 [ PAN NO.ALAPS 5539 F ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-25(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DAKSHIN, KOLKATA-700 068 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI B.K. PODDAR, FCA /BY REVENUE SHRI A.K. BANDHOPADHAY, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-06-2019 ITA NO.48 & 49/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 AYUSH SHAH LANSDOWN HEIGHT, FL-9A, 6, SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700020 [ PAN NO.BSDPS 8741 J ] ALKA J. SHAH LANSDOWN HEIGHT, FL-9A, 6, SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700020 [ PAN NO.AAHPS 8478 B ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(3),10-B, MIDDLETON ROW, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-071 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI A.K. BANDHOPADHAY, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-06-2019 PAGE 6 ITA NO.63 & 162/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SUDHEER KUMAR JAIN C/O SUBASH AGAWAL & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE 213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700069 [ PAN NO.ACVPJ 9474 G ] SRI SOUMITRA JOSHI 11,GOENKA LANE KOLKATA-700 007 [ PAN NO.ACRPJ 6112 B ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-63(1), 169, A.J.C BOSE ROAD, BAMBOO VILLA, 9 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-14 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-45(2), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE (EAST), GR.FL, KOLKATA- 01 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI A.K. BANDHOPADHAY, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-06-2019 ITA NO.212/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 BIMAL JAJODIA C/O P.K. MATHUR, ADVOCATE, 1, MEREDITH STREET, KOLKATA-700072 [ PAN NO.AEUPJ 3965 D ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-34(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 108 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI AKKAL DUDHWEWALA, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI A.K. BADHOPADHYA, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-06-2019 PAGE 7 ITA NO.32/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SHRI MAHENDRA KUMAR PERIWAL, ROOM NO. 19, 1 ST FLOOR, BHAGAT CHAMBER, 12A, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AFUPP 6290 G ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 108 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI P.K. HIMMAT SINGHKA, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI A.K. BANDHOPADHAY, JCIT-DR /DATE OF HEARING 18-06-2019 ITA NO.2427 & 2505/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SUSHIL KUMAR DAGA (HUF) 3A, MULLICK STREET, C/O SUSHIL COMPANY, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-700007 [ PAN NO.AANHS 1210 F ] SRI SUMIT JAIN 12/2 SOVARAM BYSACK STREET, BURRABAZAR, KOLKATA-700 007 [ PAN NO.AHZPJ 9406 B ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-45(2), 3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, GROUND FLOOR, ROOM NO.19,KOLKATA-01 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2589/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 RAJESH KUMAR SARDA HUF 412, MUKTI CHAMBERS, 4 CLIVE ROW, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AAHHR 1009 R ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 8 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 108 PAGE 8 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2332 & 2340/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SANDEEP REDH (HUF) 133, CANNING STREET, 3 RD FLOOR, ROOM NO. 24, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AAXHS 4963 F ] M/S NEELESH CHOUDHUR (HUF), 10, OLD POST OFFICE STREET, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AABHN 8212 Q ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, R.NO. 812, 8 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALAY KOLKATA- 107 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-35(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 7 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 716, 110, SHANTIPALLI, E.M. BYEPASS, KOLAKTA-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI MIRAJ D SHAH, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.2628/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR HIRAWAT, ROOM NO.33, 3 RD FLOOR, 133, CANNING STREET, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AARPH 3675 H ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 8 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 108 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE & SHRI ARYAN KOCHAR, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT- SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 PAGE 9 ITA NO.180/KOL/2019 & 2345/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SMT. SIKHA BAGARIA 200, BANGUR AVENUE, BLOCK-A, KOLKATA-700055 [ PAN NO.AJAPS 4843 A ] SRI KESHRI SINGH KOCHAR C/O SRI S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CHOWDHURY AVENUE, KOLKATA-700 019 [ PAN NO.AFOPK 4115 P ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-49(3), UTTARAPAN, MANICKTALA, CIVIC CENTRE, ULTADANGA INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-35(3), 110, SHANTI PALLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI ANIL KOCHAR, ADVOCATE & SHRI ARYAN KOCHAR, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.2649 & 2650/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 SUMAN KUMAR 32, EZRA STREET, ROOM NO.854, TODI CORNER, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AGBPK 7636 F ] SUNITA GOYAL 32, EZRA STREET. ROOM NO.854, TODI CORNER, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO.ADVPG 1176 B ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(4),AAYAKAR BHAVAN (POORVA), 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT PAGE 10 ITA NO.2623/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SWATI BAJAJ C/O SUBASH AGAWAL & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE 213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700069 [ PAN NO.AEDPB 7061 H ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 9 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-108 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.224/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 MANISH YADUKA SHREE KRISHNA CHAMBERS, 78, BENTINCK STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, SUITE NO 1E, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AAJPY 9868 M ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-22(4), 54/1 RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO. 109 TO 11 1 /KOL/ 2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA HB-319, SECTOR-III, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-700106 [ PAN NO.AILPG 8068 K ] AAYUSH JHUNJHUNWALA (HUF), HB-319, SECTOR-III, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA- 106 [ PAN NO.AAKHA 7794 P ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-51(2),UTTRAPAN MARKET BUILDING, MANICKTALA, CIVIC CENTRE, KOLKATA-54 PAGE 11 AAYUSH JHUNJHUNWALA HB-319, SECTOR-III, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-106 [ PAN NO.AEYPJ 0473 N ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI B.K. PODDAR, FCA /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.227& 228/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 M/S VINOD KUMAR AGRAWAL LEVEL-3, CENTRAL PLAZA, C- 11, 41, B.B GANGULY STREET, KOLKATA-700012 [ PAN NO.ACQPA 9912 R ] VINITA AGRAWAL LEVEL-3, CENTRAL PLAZA, C- 11, 41, B.B. GANGULY STREET, KOLKATA-700 012 [ PAN NO.ACGPA 1872 J ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-37(3), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI P.K. HIMMAT SINGHKA, FCA /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.831/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 KIRAN AGARWAL C/O S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S.S CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY, / V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-61, 169, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, BAMBOO VILLA CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, 9 TH FL, R.NO. 7, KOLKATA-14 PAGE 12 PIN-712105 [ PAN NO.AHYPA 6505 F ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO. 388/KOL/2019, 832 TO 834/KOL/2019 & 1052/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 SHYAM KUMAR BAID C/O S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S.S CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY, PIN-712105 [ PAN NO.AHKPB 3015 D ] TAPATI SAHANA C/O S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S.S CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY, PIN-712105 [ PAN NO.AJIPS 7560 E ] SOUVIK SAHANA C/O S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S.S CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY, PIN-712105 [ PAN NO.CAPPS 7002 B ] SURAJ SAHANA C/O S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S.S CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY, PIN-712105 [ PAN NO.BQFPS 1733 Q ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-23(2), AAYKAR BHAWANA, G.T. ROAD, KHADINA MORE, P.O.&P.S CHINSURAH, , DIST. HOOGHLY PIN- 712101 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN KACHARI ROAD, COURT COMPOUND, P.O.&P.S. BURDWAN, DIST. PURBA BARDDHAMAN, 713101 PAGE 13 SHYAM KUMAR & SONS (HUF) C/O S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S.S CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY, PIN-712105 [ PAN NO.AAPHS 5947 D ] / V/S . ACIT,CIRCLE-24(1) AAYKAR BHAWAN, G.T. ROAD, KHADINA MORE, P.O.&P.S CHINSURAH,, DIST. HOOGHLY-712101 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.2461 & 2462/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 SHRI VIVEK MADHOGARIA 42, DOBSON ROAD, 2 ND FLOOR, GOLABARI, HOWRAH- 711101 [ PAN NO.BLEPM 6272 L ] KAILASH KUMAR MADHOGARIA (HUF), 42, DOBSON ROAD, 2 ND FLOOR, GOLABARI, HOWRAH-711101 [ PAN NO.AADHK 9853 N ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-47(4),3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI SUMIT SURANA, FCA /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 PAGE 14 ITA NO.78/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 SMT. SHILPI JAIN 174, RABINDRA SARANI, BURRABAZAR, KOLKATA- 700007 [ PAN NO.AGSPH 1244 R ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-45(1),3, GOVERNMENT PLACE, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI AMIT AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.2590/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR AGRAWAL, CF-307, SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR, 1, NORTH 24 PARGANNAS, KOLKATA-700064 [ PAN NO.ADAPA 3275 A ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(1),110, SHANTIPALLY, 7 TH FLOOR, E.M. BYPASS, KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI PRAKAS CHAND NAYAK, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.2615/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 RAM AWATAR DHOOT 29B, RABINDRA SARANAI, 3 RD FLOOR, ROOM NO. 10E, KOLKATA-700073 [ PAN NO.ADEPD 7419 F ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-22(4), 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT PAGE 15 /BY APPELLANT SHRI RAM AWATARA DHOOT, AR /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.2651/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL 5, CLIVE ROW, ROOM NO.23, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.ACHPA 8951 D ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(4), AAYKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKTA- 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI MANISH TIWARI, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.2685/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 AJAY KUMAR SHAW 12, A.L. DAW ROAD, BUDGE BUDGE, KOLKATA-700137 [ PAN NO.AMAPS 2210 A ] / V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-26(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN, DAKSHIN, 2 ND FLOOR, 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKATA-68 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SANJAY SEN, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.2666/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 P.K. SHARMA SONS HUF 4 FAIRLIE PLACE, HMP HOUSE, 1 ST FLOOR, ROOM NO. 104, KOLKATA-700001 / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(1), 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA- 107 PAGE 16 [ PAN NO.AAHHP 7913 C ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 20-06-2019 ITA NO.1798/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 BEGRAJ AGARWAL & OTHERS (HUF), DIAMOND HERITAGE, UNIT NO. 609, 16 STRAND ROAD, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AABHB 8295 F ] / V/S . ACIT, CIRCLE-34, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110 SHANTIPALLY, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUNIL SURANA, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-06-2019 ITA NO.237/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 MOHINI DEVI PANSARI PODDAR COURT, GATE NO. 3 2 ND FLOOR, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AFVPP 0538 A ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(4), AAYKAR BHAWAN POORVA,110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA- 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT MANISH TIWARI, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-06-2019 PAGE 17 ITA NO.2473/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 PRAMOD BAID HUF 313, TODI CHAMBERS, 2, LAL BAZAR STREET, KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.AADHB 7500 D ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 9 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT YASH BAID, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-06-2019 ITA NO.1625/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 SHRI RAJESH AGARWAL 88/2A, RAFI AAHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700016 [ PAN NO.ACXPA 1705 B ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-31(1), KOLKATA /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, ADVOCATE, /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-06-2019 ITA NO.676/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 RITU JAIN 8B, DIAMOND TOWER, 37, DIAMOND HARBOUR ROAD, KOLKATA-27 [ PAN NO.AETPL 5071 Q ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3), NR. SUBASH PARK, SOUTH LAKE ROAD, PURULIA-723101 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT PAGE 18 ITA NO.2464/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 M/S PREMCHAND HANUMAN MAL BUCHA (HUF), 10 MURLIDHAR SEN LANE, BURRABAZAR, KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.AACHP 6274 M ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI MIRAJ D, ADVOCATE, /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-06-2019 ITA NO.2161 & 2162/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SHRI GOURAV GUPTA C/O K.N. GUPTA & ASSOCIATES, 37A, BENTINCK STREET, R.NO. 414, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 069 [ PAN NO.AUTPG 1985 B ] SHRI SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA C/O K.N. GUPTA & ASSOCIATES, 37A, BENTINCK STREET, R.NO. 414, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 069 [ PAN NO.ADWPG 7672 D ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-34(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, 7 TH FLOOR, R.NO. 712, KOLKATA-107 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA 110, SHANTIPALLY 8 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-06-2019 PAGE 19 ITA NO.29 & 30/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR DIDWANIA, DB-06, SECTOR-1, SALT LAKE CITY KOLKATA-700 064 [ PAN NO.ACSPD 9573 H ] SHRI SIDHARTH DASSANI WARDLEY HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, 25C, SWALLOW LANE, OLD CHINA BAZAR, KOLKATA [ PAN NO.ADUPD 6282 G ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-50(3),MANICKTALA CIVIC CENTER, UTTARAPAN COMPLEX, KOLKATA-54 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-63(1), BAMBOOVILA, 9 TH FLOOR, 169, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-20 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.1654 & 1655/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SUSHILA MADHOGARIA C/O S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CHOWDHURY AVENUE, KOLKATA-19 [ PAN NO.AFHPM 6512 M ] SATISH MADHOGARIA (HUF) C/O S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CHOWDHURY AVENUE, KOLKATA-19 [ PAN NO.AARHS 9965 F ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-47(4), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-01 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-48(4),3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-01 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2190 & 2208/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 MD. IRSHAD AZIZ C/O S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CHOWDHURY AVENUE, KOLKATA-19 [ PAN NO.AERPA 8129 F ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA- 107 PAGE 20 MD. SHARIQUE C/O S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHUTOSH CHOWDHURY AVENUE, KOLKATA-19 [ PAN NO.ANSPS 3631 C ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-34(4), 110, SHANTI PALLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2341 & 2432/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 PARICHAY TRADCOM PVT. LTD. C/O RSVPC & CO. 41A, A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, SUITE NO.613, 6 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-17 [ PAN NO.AAECP 9444 Q ] KAMRAJ TRADERS & FOODS PVT. LTD., 36, STRAND ROAD, 1 ST FLOOR, ROOM NO.8, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO.AABCK 1471 B ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) AAYKAR BHAWAN, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA-69 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA-69 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI ANIL KOCHAR, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-06-2019 ITA NO.1803/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SAJJADBHAI NURUDDIN NANDARBARWALA, C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 [ PAN NO.ABSPN 9303 N ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-36(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT PAGE 21 ITA NO.1808 & 1814/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 PREMLATA AGARWAL C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 [ PAN NO.AERPA 7886 F ] SRI RAJESH AGARWAL 3/1, AHMED MAMUJI STREET, G.T. ROAD (NORTH), HOWRAH- 711204 [ PAN NO. ACWPA 0587 G ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-46(1), 3, GOVT. PLACE, KOLKATA-001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2206 & 2213/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 NARENDRA KUMAR GOYAL C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 [ PAN NO.ADAPG 9209 L ] PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL 7, RABINDRA SARANI, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.ACVPA 3110 A ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-22(4),54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA-700 016 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2209/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 KAMLESH AGARWAL FLAT NO.L 4K, BLOCK-4, WINDSOR CASTLE, 74/1, NARKELDANGA MAIN ROAD, / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-45(1),3,GOVT. PLACE, KOLKATA-001 PAGE 22 KOLKATA-54 [ PAN NO.ACUPA 4957 C ] /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2459/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 JEMISH SHAH 70, CANNING STREET, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO.AZLPS 3562 K ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(2),AAYKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 700 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-06-2019 ITA NO.1738 & 1739/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 S.N. LAHOTI & SONS (HUF) 171, RAMKRISHNA LANE, SHIBPUR, HOWRAH-711102 [ PAN NO.AAQHS 0122R ] MAHESH LAHOTI 171, RAMKRISHNA LANE, OPPOSITE PALLY MATH, SHIBPUR, HOWRAH-711102 [ PAN NO. ACUPL 9515 D ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-48(4), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA- 001 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-47(3), 3, GOVT. PLACE, (WEST), KOLKATA-001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT PAGE 23 ITA NO.2607/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 DAYAMAYE MARBLE & GRANITE, C/O S.N. GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEVEN BROTHERSLODGE, P.O.BUROSHIBTALA, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY PIN-712105 [ PAN NO.AAFFD 7699 K ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1),AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOOGHLY, G.T. ROAD, KHADINA MORE, P.O. & P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY,-712101 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2370/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 ANAND LOHIA 24A, SHREE NIKETAN, 20 DOBSON LANE, HOWRAH- 711101 [ PAN NO.ABTPL 0347 D ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-34(2),AAYKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 700 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH, ADVOCATE, /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 24-06-2019 ITA NO.1813/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 PUNAM PARSURAMKA C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-69 [ PAN NO.AFGPP 4127 A ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-62(2) KOLKATA PAGE 24 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE, /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 25-06-2019 ITA NO.250/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 KRISHNA KUMAR PARSURAMKA 23A, N.S. ROAD, 7 TH FLOOR, FORTUNA TOWER ROOM NO. 4A, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO.AFXPP 8562 N ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-22(4), 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-16 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI A.N. KESHARI, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 25-06-2019 ITA NO.2226/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 KAUSHAL AGARWAL IDEAL GRAND, BLOCK-A, FLAT NO. 7F, 456, G.T. ROAD (SOUTH), HOWRAH-711102 [ PAN NO.AIPPA 6624 H ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-46(1), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-01 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 25-06-2019 PAGE 25 ITA NO.2164/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 SRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL 21, HEMANTA BASU SARANI, 2 ND FLOOR, UNIT-227, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO.ACXPA 1620 K ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-22(4), 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-16 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY APPELLANT SHRI VIKASH SURANA, FCA /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 25-06-2019 ITA NO.1769/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 SRI GOPAL KRISHNA BANKA 16/2C, ARMENIAN STREET, BURRA BAZAR, KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.ACNPB 8167 G ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-34(4), 110, SHANTI PALLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA-107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2331 & 1825/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 ASHOK KUMAR REDH HUF 133, CANNING STREET, 3 RD FLOOR, ROOM NO. 24, KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.AACHA 9181 N ] SMT. ANJU DEVI PATWARI 19, SYNAGOGUE STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-700001 [ PAN NO.AFFPP 9866 B ] / V/S . / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-34(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, R.NO.812, 8 TH FLOOR, 110, KOLKATA-107 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-34(2) 10, MIDDLETON ROW KOLKATA-700001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT PAGE 26 ITA NO.2428 & 2429/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2014-15 RAVI KUMAR DAGA 3A, MULLICK STREET, KOLKATA-700 007 [ PAN NO.ADJPD 9755 D ] RAVI KUMAR DAGA [HUF] 3A, MULLICK STREET, KOLKATA-700 007 [ PAN NO. AAGHR 2721 H ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-45(1), 3, GOVT. PLACE, KOLKATA-001 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2153 & 2317/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 PAWAN KUMAR GOENKA TODI CHAMBERS, 2, LAL BAZAR STREET, 2 ND FLOOR ROOM NO. 217, KOLKATA-700 001 [ PAN NO.ADMPG 2615 C ] M/S PRAKASH PATAWARI [HUF] P-12, NEW HOWRAH BRIDGE APPROACH ROAD, BURRABAZAR KOLKATA [ PAN NO. AAGHP 3487 E ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-35(1), AAYKAAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA- 107 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT ITA NO.2221/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 SRI UTTAM JHAWAR 71/A/2, ALIPORE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 027 [ PAN NO.ACTPJ 9225 F ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-63(3), 169, A.J.C BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 014 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT PAGE 27 ITA NO.1725/KOL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2015-16 RITA DEVI AGARWAL 2 ND FLOOR, AKSHYTARA APARTMENT, SEVOKE ROAD, 2 ND MILE, SILIGURI-734001 [ PAN NO.AGDPA 3878 P ] / V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MATIGARA, SILIGURI-734010 /APPELLANT .. /RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI MIRAJ D SHAH, ADVOCATE /BY REVENUE SHRI SANKAR HALDER, JCIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 25-06-2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 -06-2019 /O R D E R THESE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THEIR INSTANT APPEALS INVOLVING DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) SEPARATE ORDER(S) AFFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICER( S) IDENTICAL ACTION TREATING VARYING SUMS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG) / LONG/SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS (LTCL); AS THE CASE MAY BE AS INVOLVING UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDITS U/S 68, INVOLVING PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. I HAVE HEARD THESE APPEAL(S) TOGETHER; DATE-WISE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SOLE IDENTICAL ISSUE RAISED IN THE INSTANT ENTIRE BATCH IS THAT OF GENUINENESS OF ASSESSEES LTCG/LTCL, AS THE CASE MAY BE, DERIVED FROM SALE OF SHARES HELD IN VARIOUS SCRIPS. IT IS IN THIS IDENTICAL BACKDROP THAT I AM TREATING ITA NO.2623KOL/2018 IN CASE OF SWATI BAJAJ VS. ITO WD-36(2), KOLKATA FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AS THE LEAD CASE. PAGE 28 3. BOTH THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE(S) TAKE ME TO CI T(A)S DETAILED DISCUSSION WHILST TREATING THE IMPUGNED STCL PRE-ARRANGED BOGU S LOSS IN THE INSTANT LEAD CASE VIDE THE FOLLOWING LOWER APPELLATE DISCUSSION:- 06. FINDINGS & DECISION: 1. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED IN MAKING AN ADDITIO N OF RS.28,23,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. AFTER AN EXHAUS TIVE DISCUSSION AND ELABORATING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX, HAS HELD THAT THE CLAIM O F LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S. 10(38) WAS TO BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE-INDIVIDUAL, AND WAS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF FINDINGS, AND THERE IS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW NO FURTHER REQUIREMENT FOR ELABORATION FROM THIS FORUM . IN MY VIEW OF THE FACTS THERE ARE ELABORATE AND DIRECT EVIDENCE TO CLEARLY INDICATE T HAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT WERE MERELY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TAKEN F OR THE PURPOSE OF SUCH BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIO US YEAR. IT IS APPARENT THAT, IN THE GRAB OF ALLEGED LTCG, THE ASSESSEE EARNED EXEMPT INCOME OF RS.28,23,500/- AND HUGE AMOUNT BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS WITHOUT PAYING A SINGLE RUPE E OF TAX. THE LD.AO HAS VERY CAREFULLY ANALYZED THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIG ATION WING, AND HAS RECORDED THE NOTEWORTHY FEATURES OF THE COMPANY WHOSE SHARES WER E PURCHASED / SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE- INDIVIDUAL. THE ECONOMIC PARAMETERS OF THE SAID COM PANY OVER THE IMPUGNED PERIOD HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD, IN THE ANALYSIS. THE RISE A ND FALL OF THE PRICES AS RECORDED HAD BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE LD. AO TO BE ARTIFICIAL AND NOT COMMENSURATE WITH THE NORMAL MARKET, AS THE COMPANY HAS NO BUSINESS AT ALL. THE LD. AO HAS ALSO BROUGHT FORTH INFORMATION THAT THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY SEBI HAS ALSO AFTER INVESTIGAT ING SUCH ABNORMAL PRICE INCREASES OF CERTAIN STOCKS INVESTIGATED THE MATTER AND SUSPENDE D TRADING IN CERTAIN SCRIPTS. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PRICES OF THESE SCRIPTS FELL SHARPLY AFTER THE OFFLOADING OF THESE SCRIPTS BY PRE-ARRANGED AND MANIPULATED TRANSACTIONS. THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIO NS WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE STOCK EXCHANGE TO GIVE IT A COLOR OF REAL TRANSACTIONS. 2. I ALSO FIND THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APP ELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL POINT TOWARDS THE ELABORATE DOCUMENTATION, MEANING THEREB Y THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PRODUCED PAPERS RELATING TO APPLICATION FOR THE SHARES, THE ALLOTME NT OF THE SHARES, THE SHARE CERTIFICATES PAYMENTS BY CHEQUE AND THE NECESSARY PAPERS FILED B EFORE THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, WHERE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REFLECTED AS A SH AREHOLDER. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED PROOF OF AMALGAMATION OF THE COMPANIES WHEREIN THE SHAREHOLDING HAS CHANGED HANDS. IT IS ALSO THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAS PR OVIDED COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT, BANK CONTRACT NOTES AND DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS TO THE BRO KER BY WAY OF PROOF THAT AN THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE. HOWEVER, IN MY VIEW OF T HE MATTER, IT IS PRECISELY THIS ELABORATE PAPERWORK THAT STRENGTHENS THE MATTER RELATING TO T HE BOGUS BENEFIT OF THE LTCG, WHICH CLEARLY HAS BEEN SCHEMED, PRE-PLANNED AND EXECUTED WITH MALA FIDE INTELLIGENCE AND PRECISION. THEREFORE ALL THESE PAPERS ARE MERE DOCUMENTS AND N OT ANY EVIDENCE. THE WHOLE GAMUT OF TRANSACTIONS ARE UNNATURAL AND HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS, A ND THEREFORE THE RULES OF SUSPICIOUS TRRNSACTIONS OUGHT TO APPLY IN THE INSTANT CASE. TH ERE ARE GRAVE DOUBTS IN THE STORY PROPOUNDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW, NONE OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. AO BY THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT ARE ENO UGH TO JUSTIFY THE HUMONGOUS GAINS ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CAPITAL GAINS,. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW BANKING DOCUMENTS ARE MERE SELF SERVING RECITALS. THE LAWIT1 THE MATT ER OF SELF-SERVING RECITALS HAS BEEN LONG ESTABLISHED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS P MOHANKALA 291 ITR 278, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE MONEY CAME BY W AY OF BANK CHEQUE AND WAS PAID THROUGH THE PROCESS OF BANKING TRANSACTIONS WAS NOT BY ITSELF OF ANY CONSEQUENCES. 1/ THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER OF JUSTIFICATION OF RECEIPTS WHICH ARE OF SUSPICIOUS AND DUBIOUS NATURE, IN THE CASE OF CIT D URGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS LAYING DOWN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES HELD AS UNDER: 'IN A CASE WHERE A PARTY RELIED ON SELF SERVING RECITALS IN DOCUMENTS, IT WAS FOR THAT PARTY TO PAGE 29 ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS: THE TAXING A UTHORITIES WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY S UCH RECITALS. ' SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER: 'IN VIEW OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDI TED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE TOR ANY PREVIOUS VEER, THE SAME MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TA X AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSES OF' THAT PREVIOUS VEER IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASS ESSEE ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF IS, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT SATISF ACTORY. IN SUCH A CASE, THERE IS PRIMA FACIE, EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE VIZ. THE RECEIPT OF M ONEY, AND IF HE FAILS TO REBUT, THE SAID EVIDENCE BEING UN-REBUTTED, CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM BY HOLDING THAT IT WAS A RECEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE.IN THE CASE OF SAJJAN DAS & SONS VS. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 (DELHI), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI, WHILE CONSIDE RING A CASE IN WHICH GIFTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS LAID IMPOR TANCE ON THE CAPACITY OF THE DONOR FOR MAKING THE GIFT AND HIS IDENTITY AS WELL AS IMPORTA NCE OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DONOR AND DONE IN DETERMINATION OF GENUINENESS OF GIFT HELD A S UNDER: THAT A MERE IDENTIFICATION OF THE DONOR AND SHOWING THE MOVEMENT OF THE GIFT AMOUNT T HROUGH BANKING CHANNELS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. SI NCE THE CLAIM OF THE GIFT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS LAY ON HIM NOT ONLY TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON MAKING THE GIFT BUT ALSO HIS CAPACITY TO MAKE A GIFT AND THAT IT HA D ACTUALLY BEEN RECEIVED AS A GIFT FROM THE DOOR.IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW WHEREVER DOCUMENTS ARE RELIED UPON THEY SHOULD PASS THE TEST OF NORMAL BEHAVIOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CURSE OF BU SINESS VIZ., HUMAN CONDUCT, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY AND SURROUNDING CIRCUM STANCES. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, EVEN IF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED, THE SAME MUST PAS S THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IF THEY DO NOT, THEN ADDI TION JUSTIFIED. RELIANCE ON SUCH MATTERS IS PLACED ON THE CASE OF SMT. PHOOLWATI DEVI 314 ITR (AT) 1 (DEL). 3. IT MUST ALSO BE STATED HERE THAT IN COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX VS NR PORTFOLIO PVT LTD ON 22 NOVEMBER, 2013, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD... ... THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOTH AN INVESTIGATOR AND AN ADJUDICATOR. WHEN A FACT IS ALLEGED AND STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY AN ASSESSEE, HE MUST AND SHOULD EXAMINE AND VERIFY, WHEN IN DOUBT OR WHEN THE ASSER TION IS DEBATABLE. NORMALLY A FACTUAL ASSERTION MADE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER UNLESS FOR JUSTIFICATION AND REASONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FEE LS THAT HE NEEDS/REQUIRES A DEEPER AND DETAILED VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS ALLEGED. THE ASS ESSEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD COOPERATE AND FURNISH PAPERS, DETAILS AND PARTICULA RS. THIS MAY ENTAIL ISSUE OF NOTICES TO THIRD PARTIES TO FURNISH AND SUPPLY INFORMATION OR CONFIRM FACTS OR EVEN ATTEND AS WITNESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN ALSO REFER TO IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH HIM AND CALL UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FI LE THEIR RESPONSE. WE CANNOT LAY DOWN OR STATE A GENERAL OR UNIVERSAL PROCEDURE OR M ETHOD WHICH SHOULD BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN VERIFICATION OF FACTS IN REQUIRED. THE MANNER AND MODE OF CONDUCTING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS TO BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE SAME SHOULD BE JUST, FAIR AND SHOU LD NOT CAUSE ANY HARASSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE OR THIRD PERSONS FROM WHOM CONFIRMATION OR VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED. THE VERIFICATION AND INVESTIGATION SHOULD BE ONE WITH T HE LEAST AMOUNT OF INTRUSION, INCONVENIENCE OR HARASSMENT ESPECIALLY TO THIRD PAR TIES, WHO MAY HAVE ENTER3ED INTO TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ULTIMATE FINDIN G OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD REFLECT DUE APPLICATION OR MIND ON THE RELEVANT FAC TS AND THE DECISION SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE MATERIAL, WHICH IS GERMANE AND WHICH SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED AND EXCLUDE THAT WHICH IS IRRELEVANT. CERTAIN FACTS OR ASPECTS MAY BE NEUTRAL AND SHOULD BE NOTED. THESE SHOULD NOT BE IGNORED BUT TH EY CANNOT BECOME THE BEDROCK OR SUBSTRATUM OF CONCLUSION. THE PROVISIONS OF EVIDENC E ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEING A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, MUST TAKE CARE AND CAUTION TO ENSURE THAT THE DECISION IS REASONABLE AND SATISFIES THE C ANNONS OF EQUITY, FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE. THE EVIDENCE SHOULD BE IMPARTIALLY AND OBJECTIVELY ANALYZED TO ENSURE THAT THE ADVERSE FINDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHEN RECORDED ARE ADEQUATELY AND DULY SUPPORTED BY MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE AND CAN WITHSTAN D THE CHALLENGE IN APPELLATE PAGE 30 PROCEEDINGS. PRINCIPLE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABIL ITIES APPLIES. WHAT IS STATED AND THE SAID STANDARD, EQUALLY APPLY TO THE TRIBUNAL AN D INDEED THIS COURT. THE REASONING AND THE GROUNDS GIVEN IN ANY DECISION OR PRONOUNCEM ENT WHILE DEALING WITH THE CONTENTIONS AND ISSUES SHOULD REFLECT APPLICATION O F MIND ON THE RELEVANT ASPECTS. WHEN AN ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCE OR TRIES TO AVOID APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT NECESSARILY CREATES DIFFICULT IES AND PREVENTS ASCERTAINMENT OF TRUE AND CORRECT FACTS AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DENIED ADVANTAGE OF THE CONTENTION OR FACTUAL ASSERTION BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. IN CASE AN ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY AND INTENTIONALLY FALLS TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DESIRE TO PREVENT INQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION, AN ADVERSE VIEW S HOULD BE TAKEN. 4. IN THIS CONNECTION, I ALSO WISH TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT BOMBAY BENCH B ITA(NO.614/BOM/87 A.Y. 1983-84) IN THE CASE OF M/S. MONT BLANE PROPERTIES AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT. THE HORI'BLE TRIBUNAL HERD THAT THE WORD 'EVIDENCE' AS USED IN SEC. 143(3 ) COVERED CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALSO. THE WORD ' EVIDENCE ' AS USED IN SEC. 143 (3) OBVIOUSLY COULD NOT BE CO NFINED TO DIRECT EVIDENCE. THE WORD 'EVIDENCE' WAS COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH TO COV ER THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALSO. UNDER THE TAX JURISPRUDENCE, THE WORD ' EVIDENCE ' HAD MUCH WIDER CONNOTATIONS. WHILE THE WORD 'EVIDENCE' MIGHT RECALL THE ORAL AND DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE AS MAY BE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT THE USE OF WORD ' MATERIAL ' IN SEC.143(3) SNOWED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT BEING A COURT COULD RELY UPON MATERIAL , WHICH MIGHT NOT BE EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MA KING AN ORDER' OF ASSESSMENT. COURT OFTEN TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF CERTAIN FACTS WHICH NEED NO T BE PROVED BEFORE THEM. THE PLAIN READING OF SECTION 142 AND 143 CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER MAY ALSO ACT ON THE MATERIAL GATHERED BY HIM. THE WARD 'MATERIAL' DEARLY SHOWS T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT FETTERED BY THE TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND THE LIKE, AND T HAT HE MAY ACT ON MATERIAL WHICH MAY NOT STRICTLY SPEAKING BE ACCEPTED EVIDENCE IN COURT OF LAW. 5. THE HON'BTE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V, DURGA PRASAD MORE[1971] 82 ITR 540 AT PAGES 545- 547 MADE A REFERENCE TO THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILI TIES IN THE FOLLOWING FACT SITUATION :. ... ... IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSI DERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE RE4AL. IN A CASE OF THE PRESENT KIND A PARTY WHO RELIES ON A RECITAL IN A DEED HAS TO ESTA BLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS. OTHERWISE IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS EITHER EXECUTED OR TAKEN BY A PARTY AND RELY ON THOSE RECI TALS. IF ALL THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS TO EVADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITHER EXECUTED BY HIM OR EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT WIDE-OPEN TO EVADE TAX. A LITTLE PROBING WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE T O SHOW THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT THE REAL. THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO P UT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY9 OF THE RECIT ALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS.... 6. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW AS DECLARED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) THAT THE TR UE NATURE OF TRANSACTION HAVE TO BE ASCERTAINED IN THE LIGHT OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANC ES. IT NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED THAT STANDARD OF PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT HAS NO APPLICABILI TY IN DETERMINATION OF MATTERS UNDER TAXING STATUTES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS CLEAR T HAT APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL AS EVIDENCED FROM THE INVESTIGATION REPORT. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT, IN THE CASE OF CHUHAR MAL VS CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT T HE PRINCIPLE OF EVIDENCE LAW ARE NOT TO BE IGNORED BY THE AUTHORITIES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, H UMAN PROBABILITY HAS TO BE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE, SINCE THE AO IS NOT FETTERED, BY TECHNIC AL RULES EVIDENCE, AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAKESHWARI COTTON MIL LS V CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF CHUHAR MEL V CIT (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHAT WAS MEANT BY SAYING THAT EVIDENCE ACT DID NOT APPLY TO THE PR OCEEDINGS UNDER INCOME-TAX ACT,1961, WAS THAT THE RIGORS OF RULES OF EVIDENCE, CONTAINED IN THE EVIDENCE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE; BUT PAGE 31 THAT DID NOT MEAN THAT WHEN THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE DESIROUS OF INVOKING THE PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE ACT, IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEM, THEY WERE PREVENTED FROM DOING SO. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT THAT ALL THAT SECTIO N 110 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 DID, WAS 'TO EMBODY A SALUTARY PRINCIPLE OF COMMON LAW, JURI SPRUDENCE VIZ, WHERE A PERSON WAS FOUND IN POSSESSING OF ANYTHING, THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT HE WAS NOT ITS OWNER, WAS ON THAT PERSON. THUS, THIS PRINCIPLE COULD BE ATTRACTED TO A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SATISFIES ITS CONDITIONS AND WAS APPLICABLE TO TAXING PROCEEDINGS. 7. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. AO THAT THE TRANS ACTIONS RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF LTCG AS MADE BY THE LD. AO COME WITHIN THE AMBIT OF ' SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS ', AND THEREFORE THE RULES OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS WOULD APPLY TO THE CASE. PAYMENT THROUGH BANKS, PERFORMANCE THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND OTHER SUCH F EATURES ARE ONLY APPARENT FEATURES. THE REAL FEATURES ARE THE MANIPULATED AND ABNORMAL PRIC E OF OFF LOAD AND THE SUDDEN DIP THEREAFTER. THEREFORE, I HAVE TO REACH THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE TRANSACTIONS AS DISCUSSED BY THE LD.AO FALL IN THE REALM OF ' SUSPICIOUS ' AND ' DUBIOUS ' TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. AO HAS THEREFORE NECESSARILY TO CONSIDER THE SURROUNDING C IRCUMSTANCES, WHICH HE INDEED HAS DONE IN A VERY METICULOUS AND CAREFUL MANNER. IN THE CASE O F WIN CHADHA VS CIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) IN ITA NO.3088 &: 3107/DEL/200S THE HON'B LE DELHI ITAT 'B'-BENCH HAS OBSERVED, ON 31.12.2010 AS UNDER: 'SUSPICIOUS AND DIBI0US TRASANCTI0N HOW TO BE DEA LT WITH: 6.11, THE TAX LIABILITY IN THE CASES OF SUSPICIOUS TRANSACTIONS, IS TO BE ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, SURROUND ING CIRCUMSTANCES, HUMAN CONDUCT, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND NATURE OF INCRIM INATING INFORMATION/ EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH AO. 6.12. IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT (1995) 80 TAXMAN 89 (SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT' HAS DEALT WITH THE RELEVANCE OF HUMA N CONDUCT, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCE, BURDEN OF PROOF AND ITS SHIFTING ON THE DEPARTMENT IN CASES OF SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES, BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: ',,,,. IT IS, NO DOUBT, TRUE THAT IN ALL CASES IN W HICH A RECEIPT IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED AS INCOME, THE BURDEN LIES ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT IT IS WITHIN THE TAXING PROVISION AND IF A RECEIPT IS IN THE NAT URE OF INCOME; THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT IT IS NOT TAXABLE BECAUSE IT FALLS WIT HIN EXEMPTION PROVIDED BY THE ACT LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE, BUT IN VIEW OF SECT ION 68, WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, THE SAME MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABO UT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF IS, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , NOT SATISFACTORY. IN SUCH CASE THERE IS PRIMA FACIE EYID~L1CE AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE, VTZ., THE RECEIPT OF MONEY, AND IF HE FALLS TO REBUT THE SAME, THE SAID EVIDENCE BEING UN- REBUTTED, CAN BE USED AGAINST HIM BY HOLDING THAT IL' IS A RE CEIPT OF AN INCOME NATURE. WHILE CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT, HOWEVER, ACT UNREASONABLY. ... ... HAVING REGARD TO THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLA NT AS DISCLOSED IN HER SWORN STATEMENT AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIAL ON THE RECORD, AN INFERENCE COULD REASONABLY BE DRAWN THAT THE WINNING TICKETS WERE PURCHASED BY TH E APPELLANT AFTER THE EVENT. THE MAJORITY OPINION AFTER CONSIDERING SURROUNDING CIRC UMSTANCES AND APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM ABOUT THE AMOUNT BEING HER WINNING FROM RACES, WAS NOT GENUINE. IT C OULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNTS HAD BEEN REJECTED UNREASONABLY AND THAT THE FINDINGS THAT THE SAID AM OUNTS WERE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM, OTHER SOURCES WAS NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HOW TO BE USED PAGE 32 6.13 IT WOULD, AT THIS STAGES, BE RELEVANT TO CONSI DER THE ADMISSIBILITY AND USE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS OPPOSED TO DIRECT EVIDENCE. IT MAY CONSIST OF EVIDENCE AFFORDED BY THE BEARING ON THE FACT TO BE PROVED, OF OTHER AND SUBSIDIARY FACTS, WHICH ARE RELIED ON AS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY RESULT OTHER THAN THE TRUTH OF THE PRINCIPAL FACT. IT IS EVIDENCE OF VARIOUS FACTS, OT HER THAN THE TRUTH OF THE PRINCIPLE FACT. IT IS EVIDENCE OF VARIOUS ARE SO ASSOCIATED WITH TH E FACT IN ISSUE, THAT TAKEN TOGETHER, THEY FORM A CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO AN IN FERENCE OR PRESUMPTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE PRINCIPAL FACT. IN THE APPRECIATIO N OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE RELEVANT ASPECTS, AS LAID DOWN FROM TIME TO TIME AR E (1) THE CIRCUMSTANCES ALLEGED MUST BE ESTABLISHED B Y SUCH EVIDENCE, AS IN THE CASE OF OTHER EVIDENCE. (2) THE CIRCUMSTANCES PROVED M9USTE BE OF A CONCLUS IVE NATURE AND NOT TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONTRADICTOR Y TO OTHER EVIDENCE. (3) ALTHOUGH THERE SHOULD BE NO MISSING LINKS IN TH E CASE, YET IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL THAT EVERY ONE OF THE LINKS MUST APPEAR ON THE SURF ACE OF THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED; SOME OF THESE LINKS MAY HAVE TO INFERRED F ROM THE PROVED FACTS; (4) IN DRAWING THOSE INFERENCES OR PRESUMPTIONS, TH E AUTHORITIES MUST HAVE REGARDED TO THE COMMON COURSE OF NATURAL EVENTS, TO HUMAN CONDUCT AND THEIR RELATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. (5) THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN, WITH EQUAL FAC ILITY, BE RESTORED TO IN PROOF OF A FACT IN ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN PROCEEDING S FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF TAXES BOTH DIRECT AND INDIRECT, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVID ENCE CAN BE MADE USE OF IN ORDER TO PROVE OR DISPROVE A FACT ALLEGED OR IN ISS UE. IN FACT, IN WHATEVER PROCEEDINGS OR CONTEXT INFERENCES ARE REQUIRED TO B E DRAWN FROM THE EVIDENCE OR MATERIALS AVAILABLE OR LACKING, CIRCUMSTANTIAL E VIDENCE HAS ITS PLACE TO ASSIST THE PROCESS OF ARRIVING AT THE TRUTH. 6.14 IT WILL ALSO BE WORTHWHILE TO CONSIDER THE NAT URE OF BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE AO FOR PROVING A FACT OR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INCOME T AX PROCEEDINGS. THE QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT THE TAX LIABILITY BY THE AO ARE TO BE ANSWERED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FURNISHING REASONABLE AND PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATIONS. I F ASSESSEE IS NOT FORTHCOMING WITH PROPER OR COMPLETE FACTS OR HIS STATEMENT OR EXPLAN ATION IS CONTRADICTORY, DRAWING OF SUITABLE INFERENCES AND ESTIMATION OF FACTS IS INEV ITABLE. COURTS GENERALLY WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH SUCH ESTIMATE OF FACTS, UNLESS THE I NFERENCES OR ESTIMATES ARE PERVERSE OR CAPRICIOUS. 6.15. THE ASSESSEES TECHNICAL CONTENTIONS ABOUT AD MISSIBILITY AND RELIANCE ON MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE AOS RECORD ARE IN THE NA TURE OF CONTENTIONS CHALLENGING CRIMINAL OR CIVIL LIABILITIES IN A COURT OF LAW. WE ARE DEALING WITH A PROCESS OF ADJUDICATION OF ASSESSEES TAX LIABILITY I.E. ASSESS MENT UNDER INCOME TAX ACT RATHER THAN CONDUCTING CRIMINAL OR CIVIL COURT PROCEEDINGS . AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.S. GADGIL (SUPRA) NO LIS IS INVOLVED IN ADJUDICATION OF TAX LIABILITY. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS NO NEW MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO AFTER THE CIT(A)S SETTING ASIDE ORDER CANNOT BE AC CEPTED. NEW INFORMATION AND MATERIAL DID INDEED COME ON RECORD. IN OUR VIEW, IN A SENSITIVE MATTER LIKE THIS, EVEN A SINGLE CLUE OR REVELATION CAN BE OF GREAT IMPORTANC E. TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS TECHNICAL PLEA WILL AMOUNT TO TAKING A LOPS IDED VIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS. BESIDES, THE JPC HAS UNDERLINED THE IMPORTANCE OF R EPORTS OF INVESTIGATION AGENCIES LIKE CBI DRI, ED WHOSE WERE IN THE OFFING, AS THE R ELEVANT INVESTIGATIONS WERE IN PROCESS. IN VIEW OF THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE DO NOT A CCEDE TO THE ASSESSEES PLEAS IN THIS BEHALF. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND OBJECTIONS I N THIS BEHALF THAT THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE AND THAT IT CANNOT BE RELIED ON BY THE AO, ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND ARE REJECTED OU TRIGHT..... PAGE 33 8. WHEN THE IMPOSSIBLE IS PROJECTED AS POSSIBLE THR OUGH A PLETHORA OF WELL ARRANGED DOCUMENTS, IT WOULD BE VERY REASONABLE TO REJECT TH E DOCUMENTS OUTRIGHT AS MAKE BELIEVE AND SELF SERVING. IN THE CASE OF USHA CHANDRESH SHAH VS ITO, WARD-19(1)(2), MUMBAI, THE HON'BLE ITAT-F'- BENCH MUMBAI BY THEIR ORDER FOR A .Y 2006-07 DATED 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 HAVE, IN THE OPERATIONAL PORTION ADJUDICATED A S UNDER: [ QUOTE] 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE PERTINENT POINTS ARE THAT ME ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE IMPUGNED SHARES THROUGH OFF MARKET TRANSACTION. THE PURCHASE PRICE WAS NOT PAID BY CHEQUE, BUT IT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SPECULATION PROFIT C LAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SMALL DIFFERENCE OF RS.324/- WAS CLAI MED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY WAY OF CASH. IT IS .,(SO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ALLEGE D SPECULATION TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT EARLIER TO THE PURCHASE OF SHARES OF PRIME CAPITAL MARKETS LTD WAS ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED IN OFF MARKET TRANSACTION. ANOTHE R IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT POSSESS COPIES OF SHARE CERTIFICAT ES OR COPIES OF SHARE TRANSFER FORMS. THE , BROKER M/S KHANDELWAL & CO., HAS EXPRESSED IT S INABILITY TO FURNISH COPIES OF CONTRACT NOTES AVAILABLE WITH IT AND ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCH85E OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION WAS AN OFF MARKET TRANSACTION, THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE CONFIRMED BY THE KOLKATA STOCK EXCHANGE. THE SETA SHARES WERE EARLIER HELD BY M/S BRIGHTSUN MERCHANTS (P) LTD .AND THE ASSESSEE H AD PURCHASED THE SHARES FROM THEM. THE NOTICE ISSUED TO M/S BRIGHTSUN MERCHANTS (P) LTD WAS RETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK ' UNKNOWN '. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED THAT THE NAME OF THE COMPANY WAS WRONGLY ME NTIONED BY THE AO AS M/S BRIGHTSUNS (P)LTD AND HENCE THE NOTICE GOT RETURNE D. BUT THERE IS NOT COMMENT ABOUT THE ADDRESS, MEANING THEREBY, THE AO HAD ISSUED NOT ICE TO THE CORRECT ADDRESS ONLY AND HENCE THE SLIGHT VARIATION IN THE NAME OF THE C OMPANY WOULD NOT NORMALLY MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. HENCE THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED BACK ONLY SHOWS THAT THE SELLER OF THE SHARES COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED. ALL T HESE DISCUSSIONS WOULD SHOW THAT THE PURCHASE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE CROSS VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. ONE MORE POINT TO BE NOTED HERE IS THAT THE SP ECULATION TRANSACTIONS CAN BE ENTERED ONLY PAYMENT OF MARGIN MONEY. BUT THE DETAI LS OF SAID PAYMENT ARE NOT AVAILABLE. WITH REGARD TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE A O RELATION TO MARGIN MONEY, THE BROKER M/S D,K. KHANDEJWAL & CO HAS REPLIED IN THE CONTEXT OF PURCHASE OF SHARES OF M/S PRIME CAPITAL MARKETS LTD AND NOT IN THE CONTEX T OF SPECULATION TRANSACTIONS. THUS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE QUESTION OF KEEPING MARGI N MONEY FOR SPECULATION TRANSACTIONS REMAINS UNANSWERED BOTH BY THE ASSESSE E AS WELL AS BY THE SHARE BROKER CITED ABOVE. FURTHER THE SPECULATION TRANSACTION IS ALSO CLAIMED TO BE AN OFF MARKET TRANSACTION, WHICH FURTHER CASTS SHADOW OF DOUBT OV ER THE CLAIM PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. 11. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHAS ED THE SHARES IN PHYSICAL FORMATION MAY, 2004, SHE CHOSE TO D-MAT THE SAME ON LY IN JUNE 2005, JUST TWO MONTHS PRIOR TO ITS SALE, THE SHARES WERE SOLD THRO UGH A SHARE BROKER NAMED SANJU KABRA, WHO IS INDICTED SEBI FOR RIGGING THE PRICES OF PENNY STOCK SHARES. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE SHARE PRICES OF M/S PRIM E CAPITAL MARKETS LTD WENT FROM RS.5.17 (MAY, 2004) TO RS.279.50 (SEP., 2005). THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY REASONS OR AT-LEAST STOCK MARKET NEWS TO SUPPORT: T HE ABNORMAL INCREASE IN THE PRICES OF THE ABOVE SAID SHARES. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ABOVE SAID COMPANY WERE ALSO NOT PRODUCED. THOUGH M/S PRIME CAPITAL MARKETS LED HAS CONFIRMED THE ENTRIES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IT COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE NAME OF PURCHASER TO WHOM THE SHARES W ERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. PAGE 34 12. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE THE TAX AUTHORITIES HA VE APPLIED THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES EXPLAINED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASES OF SUMATI DAYAL AND DURGA PRASED MORE (SUPRA) TO DISBELIEVE THE CLA IM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTICE THAT THE TEST OF H UMAN PROBABILITIES WAS NOT APPLIED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI AVINOSH KANTILAL JAIN (SUPRA) AND MR. SHYAM R PAWAR (SUPRA). HENCE, IN O UR VIEW) THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE SUPPORT FROM THE ABOVE SAID DECISIONS, WE FURT HER NOTICE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION DATED 04.1.2011 REN DERED BY ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF HARESH WIN CHADDHA VS. DDIT, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNA L HAS EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION IN LAW THAT THE AO IS SUPPO SED TO DISCHARGE AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN TO ASSESS THE TAX LIABILITY BY DIRECT EVIDEN CE ONLY AND TO ESTABLISH THE EVASION BEYOND DOUBT AS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER IT WAS HELD THAT: THE AO CAN ASSESS ON CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, S URROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, HUMAN CONDUCT, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND NATURE OF INCRIMINATING INFORMATION / EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 13. IN THE CASE OF SMT. JAMNADEVI AGRAWAL (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL ON THE REASONING T HAT NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SAID ORDER WOULD SHOW THAT THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE HAD CONTENDED T HAT THE ASSESSEES IN THE GROUP HAVE PURCHASED AND SOLD SHARES OF SIMILAR COMPAT1IES THR OUGH THE SAME BROKER. FURTHER THE PURCHASE PRICES AND SALE PRICES WERE SUPPORTED BY P RODUCING THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE UNDERTAKEN AT THE R ATES PREVAILING ON THE RESPECTIVE DATES. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, THE HIGH COURT HEL D THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE FOUND FAULT WITH THE FURTHER HEL D THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL (SUPRA) W AS NOT APPLICABLE. IN THE CASE OF SHRI MUKESH RATILAL MAROLIA (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF SHARE CER TIFICATES TO SHOW THAT THE SHARES WERE IN FACT TRANSFERRED TO THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE E BEFORE IT. FURTHER THERE WAS NO ALLEGATION THAT THE PRICES OF SHARES PURCHASED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE BEFORE HIGH COURT WERE MANIPULATED. 14. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PRODUCE THE COPIES OF SHARE CERTIFICATES AND COPIES OF SHARE TRANSFER FORMS. TH E TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF SHARES COULD NOT BE CROSS VERIFIED. THE SHARES OF M/S PRIM E CAPITAL MARKETS LTD WAS DECLARED AS PENNY STOCK BY SEBI AND THE BROKER SANAJU KABRA, THROUGH WHOM THE SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INDICATED FOR MANIPULATING THE PRICES OF PENNY STOCK SHARES. HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE TAX AUTHORIT IES HAVE RIGHTLY APPLIED THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF PURCHAS E AND SALE OF SHARES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. WE NOTICE THAT THE M9UMBAI D BENCH HAS CONSIDER ED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR D JAIN IN ITA NO.3192/MUM/2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15- 06-2011, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF MAKING SPECULATION GAINS ON THE REASONING THAT SPEC ULATION TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT HAVES BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN WIT HOUT PAYING MARGIN MONEY TO THE BROKER. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF PURCHASE OF SHARE S WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND CONSEQUENTLY THE CLAIM OF SALE OF SHARES WAS ALSO R EJECTED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT, IN THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE C LAIM OF SPECULATION PROFITS WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN YET ANOTHER CASE OF SHRI ARAVING M KARIYA CONSIDERED BY A BENCH OF MUMBAI ITAT, THE TEST OF HUMAN PROB ABILITIES WAS APPLIED TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF PROFIT REALIZED ON SALE OF PENNY STOCK S. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE ONUS TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCES TO CON VINCINGLY SHOW THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD AT THE PRICES CLAIMED ALWAY S LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE. OUR PAGE 35 VIEW FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY HO N'BLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. JASVINDER KAUR (357 ITR 638) 16. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TAKEN SUPPORT OF BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED SUPRA. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY AP PLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. [UNQUOTE] 9. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED IN THE CASE OF SOMNATH M AINI VS ITO (226) 100 TTJ 917 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF ITAT HELD T HAT IF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SO WARRANT THAT IT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES, TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE NON GENUINE. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS BRIEFLY STATED ARE THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCU RRED A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY DECLARED UNDER THE VDIS, 1997, AMOUNTING TO RS.19,87,705 AND ALSO THERE WAS A SHOR T-TERM CAPITAL GAIN NEAR TO THIS AMOUNT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.20,36,700 RESULTING INTO NET CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.48,995. THE AO ON PERUS AL OF RECORD FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF A FAMILY MEMBER OF THE SAME ASSESSEE SHRI D.C. MAINI, IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, SIMILAR EXERCIS E HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN A LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.11, 59,066 HAD BEEN INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GOLD JEWELLERY DECLARED UNDER THE VDIS AND SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RSW.11,75,100 RESULTING INTO A NET GAIN OF RS.16,034. ON GOING THROUGH THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS, THE AO DO UBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE AND HE MADE FURTHER INQUIRY THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 45,000 SHARES OF M/S ANKUR INTERNATIONAL LTD. AT VARYING RATES FROM RS.2 ,06 TO RS.3.1 PER SHARE AND SOLD THEM WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF SIX-SEVEN MONT HS AT THE RATE VARYING FROM RS.47.75 TO RS.55. THESE SHARES WERE PURCHASED THROUGH A BROKER MUNISH ARORA & CO. AND SOLD THROUGH ANOTHER BROKER M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. THE AO TOOK BY SURPRISE THE ASTRONOMICAL RISE I N SHARES PRICE OF A COMPANY FROM RS.3 TO RS.55 AND STARTED FURTHER INQU IRY. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 131 TO BOTH THE BROKERS FROM W HOM SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD AND STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED. TH E AO ALSO ANALYZED THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S ANKUR INTERNATIONAL LTD. TO JU STIFY AS TO HOW THE SHARE PRICE OF A COMPANY CAN GO UP FROM A MERE RS.3 TO RS .55 IN A SHORT SPAN OF SIX TO SEVEN MONTHS TIME. THE AO MADE DETAILED AND EXT RANEOUS EXERCISE OF FINDING THE FUNDAMENTAL OF THE SHARE OF THE COMPANY BY DIFFERENT METHODS AND CONCLUDED THAT THESE SHARES WERE NOT GENUINE AN D TRANSACTIONS WERE SO ARRANGED SO AS TO COVER UP THE LOSS INCURRED ON ACC OUNT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY ONLY. THE AO ALSO RECORDED THE FINDING THAT TRANSAC TIONS WERE DONE AT LUDHIANA WHERE ALSO THE SHARE PRICE OF THE COMPANY IS QUOTED BUT MAXIMUM VALUE OF THE SHARE QUOTED WAS RS.17 BUT THAT WAS ON LY IN JULY, 1997, I.E. LONG BEFORE THE SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S S/.K. SHARMA & CO. IN THE MONTHS OF FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 1998. THE AO ALSO REC ORDED THE FINDING THAT ALTHOUGH THE SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEY WERE STILL LYING IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE MUCH AFTER THE SALE TO M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT BOTH THE BROKERS FROM WHOM THE SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AN D SOLD WERE CALLED UNDER SECTION 31 BY THE AO. BOTH HAVE CONFIRMED THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF SAID SHARES. OTHER ASPECT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES RAISED BY THE AO WAS NOT DISCUSSED BY THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. PAGE 36 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT SHARES OF A COMPA NY GO UP SO HIGH IN FEW MONTHS TIME. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE TOOK US THROUGH VARIOUS PAGES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN SALE BILL OF THE SHARES WITH THE SAID M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. WERE ALSO FILED. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT SHARES HAVE BEEN SOLD AT LUDHIANA WHEN ACTUALLY STOCK EXCHANGE WAS NOT FUNCT IONAL A FACT WHICH IS ALSO RECORDED BY THE AO. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SHARES HAVE BEEN SOLD TO M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. ON 9 TH FEB., 1998 AND 23 RD MARCH, 1998, WHEREAS FROM THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE FROM 31 ST MARCH, 1988 TO 27 TH JULY, 1998, MEANING THEREBY THAT HAD THE TRANSACTI ONS BEEN GENUINE, PAYMENT COULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN O NE GO BY S./K. SHARMA & CO. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINT ED OUT THAT ANY SUCH TYPE OF TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THESE TYPES OF COM PANY OPERATING ON STOCK EXCHANGES PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED IN PIECEMEAL WHEREA S IN NORMAL MARKET SHARE TRANSACTIONS, CONTRACT NOTES ARE ISSUED BY TH E BROKER AND PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED IN ONE GO. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE ALSO ARGUED THAT AS PER THE STATEMENT OF S.K. SHARMA & CO. RECO RDED AT THE TIME OF INQUIRY, HE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D IDENTITY OF PERSONS TO WHOM THE SHARES HAVE BEEN SOLD. ORDINARILY, WHEN BR OKERS ARE ENQUIRED ABOUT SHARE TRANSACTIONS, THEY KEEP PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOU NT FORM, WHOM SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND SOLD. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE , S.K. SHARMA & CO. FAILED TO PROVIDE THE NAMES OF PU RCHASES OF THE SHARES AND IDENTITY OF THE PURCHASERS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEANED AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE CONTENDED THAT IN THE SHARE MARKET, SHARE PRICE DOES NOT MOVE ACCORDI NG TO THE FUNDAMENTALS OF A COMPANY. THEY GO UP AND DOWN AS PER SENTIMENTS PR EVAILING AT THAT TIME. TO CONTROVERT, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HE ARGUED THAT SHARE PRICES ARE QUOTED AT JAIPUR STOCK EXCHANGE AND WERE QUOTED ON THE RELEVANT DATE OF SALE AT THE SAME PRICE ON W HICH SHARES WERE SOLD TO M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTROVERTED HIS ARGUMENT BY SAYING THAT VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS ON THE RELEVANT DATES IS ONLY 600 SHARES ON 9 TH FEB., 1998 AND 1000 SHARES ON 23 RD MARCH, 1998 WHEREAS NUMBER OF SHARES INVOLVED IN TH E TRANSACTIONS WITH S.K. SHARMA & CO. ARE 45000 SHARES. 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, GOING THROU GH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT M/S ANKUR INTERN ATIONAL LTD., ALTHOUGH IT IS A QUOTED COMPANY, ITS SHARES WERE NOT BEING TRAN SACTED AT LUDHIANA STOCK EXCHANGE ATE, THE RELEVANT TIME. SHARES HAVE BEEN P URCHASED AND SOLD THROUGH THE BROKERS AND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CHEQUE ON DIFFERENT DATES AS PER THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF M/S S.K. S HARMA & CO. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE FROM START OF THE PURCHASE OF SH ARES AT THE RATE OF RS.3 TO THE SALE OF SHARES AT RS.55 IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME AND SHARES BEING NOT, QUOTED AT LUDHIANA STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE WAY IN WHICH DIF FERENT, INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE BROKERS AND NO N-AVAILABILITY OF THE RECORDS OF THE BROKERS AND THE SHARES REMAINING IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE EVEN LONG AFTER THE SALE OF THE SHARES DOES NOT STAND TH E TEST OF PROBABILITIES. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE, THESE TYPES OF COMPANIES FUNCTION IN THE CAPITAL MARKET WHOSE S ALE PRICE IS MANIPULATED TO ASTRONOMICAL HEIGHT ONLY TO CREATE THE ARTIFICIA L TRANSACTION IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL GAIN. SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES DIFFER FROM THE NORMAL SHARE MARKET PAGE 37 TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE ORDINARILY CARRIED O UT. TAKING ALL THE STEPS TOGETHER, FINAL CONCLUSION DOES NOT ACCORD WITH THE HUMAN PROBABILITIES. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE HELD AS UNDER: IT IS A STORY THAT DOES NOT ACCORD WITH HUMAN PROBA BILITIES. IT IS STRANGE THAT HIGH COURT FOUND FAULT WITH THE TRIBUN AL FOR NOT SWALLOWING THAT STORY. IF THAT STORY IS FOUND TO BE UNBELIEVABLE AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOUND AND IN OUR OPINION, RIGHTLY THAT THE DECISIONS REMAINS THAT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE SALE PROCEED ED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, IT MUST BE ASSUMED TO BE HI S MONEY. IT IS SURPRISING THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS FOUND FAUL T WITH THE ITO FOR NOT EXAMINING THE WIFE AND THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PROVING THE DEPARTMENTS CASE. ALL THAT WE CAN SAY IS THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS IGNORED THE FACTS OF LIFE. IT IS UNFORTUN ATE THAT, THE HIGH COURT HAS TAKEN A SUPERFICIAL VIEW OF THE ONUS THAT LAY ON THE DEPARTMENT. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ONLY GOT SWAYED BY THE ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 131 TO BOTH THE BROKERS FROM WHOM SHA RES WERE PURCHASED AND SOLD AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SHARE TRANSACT IONS WERE GENUINE OVERLOOKING THE MATERIAL GATHERED BY THE AO FROM TH E STATEMENTS RECORDED OF BROKER M/S S.K. SHARMA & CO. AND THE OTHER FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES THAT VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS OF JAIPUR STOCK EXCHANGE IS ONLY 600 SHARES AND 1000 SHARES. PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE BROKER S ONLY IN INSTALLMENTS OVER A PERIOD OF 6-7 MONTHS. IT IS TRUE THAT WHEN T RANSACTIONS ARE THROUGH CHEQUES, IT LOOKS LIKE REAL TRANSACTION BUT AUTHORI TIES ARE PERMITTED TO LOOK BEHIND THE TRANSACTIONS AND FIND OUT THE MOTIVE BEH IND TRANSACTIONS. GENERALLY, IT IS EXPECTED THAT APPARENT IS REAL BUT IT IS NOT SACROSANCT. IF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SO WARRANT THAT IT DOES NOT ACCOR D WITH THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES, TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE NO N-GENUINE, IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT SHARE PRICE OF A WORTHLESS COMPANY CAN GO FROM RS.3 TO RS.55 IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME. MERE PAYMENT BY CHEQ UE AND RECEIPT BY CHEQUE DOES NOT. RENDER A TRANSACTION GENUINE. CAPITAL GAI N TAX WAS CREATED TO OPERATE IN A REAL WORLD AND NOT THAT OF MAKE BELIEF . FACTS OF THE CASE ONLY LEAD TO THE INFERENCE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GE NUINE AND MAKE BELIEVE ONLY TO OFFSET THE LOSS INCURRED ON THE SALE OF JEWELLER Y DECLARED UNDER VDIS. IN CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WE, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE AO. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED. [UNQUOTE] 10. MOREOVER, ALL THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT FALL FLAT IN THE FACE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND THE PREPONDERANCE OF PRO BABILITY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN A DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SANJAY BIMALCHAND JAIN VS. PR. CIT BY THEIR ORDER DATED 10 TH APRIL, 2017 HAVE UPHELD THE ORDERS OF THE HON'BLE ITGAT, NAGPUR BENCH DATED 18.07.2016 IN ITA NO.61/NAG/2013 IN SANJAY BIMALCHAND JAIN VS ITO, WARD-4(2), NAGPUR, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ON THE FACTS EMERGENT IN THE CASE, AND THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROB ABILITIES, ENTIRE CAPITAL GAINS CLAIMS WERE TO BE TREATED AS FICTITIOUS AND BOGUS. PAGE 38 BOGUS LTCG FROM PENNY STOCKS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TENDERED COGENT EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SHARES IN AN UNKNOWN COMPANY WORTH RS.5 HAD JUMPED TO RS.485 IN NO TIME. THE FANTASTIC SALE PRICE WAS NOT AT ALL PO SSIBLE AS THERE WAS NO ECONOMIC OR FINANCIAL BASIS TO JUSTIFY THE PRICE RISE. THE ASSE SSEE HAD INDULGED IN A DUBIOUS SHARE TRANSACTION MEANT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE UNDISCLOSED IN COME IN THE GARB OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE GAIN HAS ACCORDINGLY TO BE ASSESS ED AS UNDISCLOSED CREDIT U/S. 68. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I FIND NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDERS OF THE LD. AO, AND I CONFIRM THE SAME, HOLDING THE CLAIM OF LTCG OF RS.2 8,23,500/- TO BE BOGUS. AS A NATURAL COROLLARY, I ALSO CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.14,118;- AS MADE BY THE LD. AO. THEREFORE THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NUMBERING 1 TO 6 STANDS DISMISSED . 4. I HAVE GIVEN MY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVA L CONTENTIONS. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS BOT H THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IDENTICAL ACTION HOLDING THE ASSESSEES STCL AS BOGUS SINCE D ERIVED FROM RIGGING OF THE SCRIP PRICES IN ISSUE AND INVOLVING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY I N COLLUSION WITH THE CONCERNED ENTRY OPERATORS. HON'BLE APEX COURTS DECISIONS IN SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 80 TAXMANN.89/214 ITR 801 (SC) AND CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD MORE (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) ARE QUOTED BEFORE ME DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING AT THE REVENUES BEHEST. IT STRONGLY ARGUES THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS DISALLOWED/ ADDED THE IMPUGNED STCL BASED ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE UNEARTHED AFTER A SERIES OF SEARCH ACTIONS / INVESTIGATIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE DDIT(INV). I FIND NO MERIT IN REV ENUES INSTANT ARGUMENTS. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY PLACED ON R ECORD THE RELEVANT CONTRACT NOTES, SHARE CERTIFICATE(S), DETAILED CORROBORATIVE DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE INDICATING PURCHASE / SALE OF SHARES THROUGH REGISTERED BROKERS BY BANKIN G CHANNEL, DEMAT STATEMENTS ETC., THE REVENUES ONLY CASE AS PER ITS PLEADINGS AND BO TH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS VERY STRONG CI RCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SUGGESTING BOGUS STCL ACCOMMODATION ENTRIE S. I FIND THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE CASE WHICH COULD PIN-POINT ANY MAKING AGAINS T THESE ASSESSEES WHICH COULD BE TAKEN AS A REVENUE NEXUS. I MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CBDTS CIRCULAR DATED 10.03.2003 HAS ITSELF MADE IT CLEAR THAT MERE SEARCH STATEMENT S IN THE NATURE OF ADMISSION IN ABSENCE OF SUPPORTIVE MATERIAL DO NOT CARRY WEIGHT. I NOTICE THAT THIS TRIBUNALS CO- ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION IN ITA NO. 2474/KOL/2018 IN MAHAVIR JHANWAR VS. ITO DECIDED ON 01.02.2019 HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS LATEST DEVELOPMENTS ON LEGAL SIDE WHILST DELETING THE SIMILAR BOGUS LTCG ADDITION AS FOLLOWS:- PAGE 39 2. THE SOLE ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR MY ADJUDICATION I S WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT H E HAD EARNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES OF M/S UNN O INDUSTRIES. THE AO BASED ON A GENERAL REPORT AND MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED GENERALLY AND ON GENERAL OBSERVATIONS HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BOGUS L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HE MADE AN ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHAR ES AS INCOME AND REJECTED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION MADE U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. THE EVIDEN CE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS R EJECTED. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL AND TH E LD. CIT(A), KOLKATA, HAD UPHELD THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IN HIS ORDER RELIE D 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 BY THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF T HE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REMAINS UNCHALLENGED AND UNCONTROVERTED. THE ENTIRE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, ARE BASED ON A COMMON REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF INVESTI GATION, KOLKATA, WHICH WAS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NOT SPECIFIC TO ANY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH ANY STATEMENT OR MATERIAL ALLEGED TO BE THE BA SIS OF THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT AND WHICH WERE THE BASIS ON WHICH CONCLUSION WERE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE REPORT WAS ALSO NOT GIVEN. 4. THE LD. D/R, SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT GENUINE. HE ARGUED THAT THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN WAS STAGE MANAGED BY A FEW OPER ATORS AND INVESTORS. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND ARGUED THAT THE SAME BE UPHELD. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CHENNAI A BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. PANKAJ AGARWAL & SONS (HUF) VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1413 TO 142 0/CHNY/2018; ORDER DT. 06/12/2018, FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT SUCH CAPITAL G AINS HAVE TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY BIMALCHAND JAIN VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX-1, NAGPUR; [2018] 89 TAXMANN.COM 196 (BOMBAY) AND THE DECISION OF THE SM T. M.K. RAJESHWARI VS. ITO; ITA NO.1723/BNG/2018; ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, ORDE R DT. 12/10/2018. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, I FIND THAT IN A NUMBE R OF CASES THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS CONSISTE NTLY HELD THAT, DECISION IN ALL SUCH CASES SHOULD BE BASED ON EVIDENCE AND NOT ON GENERA LISATION, HUMAN PROBABILITIES, SUSPICION, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. IN ALL CASES A DDITIONS WERE DELETED. SOME OF THE CASES WERE, DETAILED FINDING HAVE BEEN GIVEN ON THI S ISSUE, ARE LISTED BELOW: - SL.NO. ITA NO.S NAME OF THE ASSESSEE DATE OF ORDER/JUDGMENT 1 ITA NO.714 TO 718/KOL/2011 ITAT, KOLKATA DICT VS. SUNITA KHEMKA 28.10.2015 2 214 ITR 244 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT CIT VS. CARBO IND USTRIAL HOLDINGS LTD. 3 250 ITR 539 CIT VS. EMERALD COMMERCIAL LTD. 23.03.2001 4 ITA NO.1236-1237/KOL/2017 5 ITA NO.569/KOL/2017 GAUTAM PINCHA 15.11.2017 6 ITA NO.443/KOL/2017 KIRAN KOTHARI HUF 15.11.2017 7 ITA NO.2281/KOL/2017 NAVNEET AGARWAL VS. ITO 20.0 7.2018 8 ITA NO.456 OF 2007 BOMBAY HIGH COURT CIT VS. SHRI MUKESH RATILAL MAROLIA 18.01.2018 PAGE 40 9. ITA NO.95 OF 2017 (O&M) PCIT VS. PREM PAL GANDHI 18.01.2018 10 ITA NO.1089/KOL/2018 SANJAY MEHTA 28.09.2018 6. REGARDING THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I FIND THAT, IN THE CASE OF M/S. PANKAJ AGARWAL & SON S (HUF)(SUPRA), THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT, T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM AS GENUINE BY PRODUCING EVIDENCE AND WAS ONLY ARGUING FOR THE MATTER TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE GROUND OF NAT URAL JUSTICE. AS SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ITAT REJECTED THESE ARGUMENTS. IN THE CASE ON HAND, ALL EVIDENCES WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF SANJAY BIMALCHAND JAIN, LEGAL HEIR OF SANTI DEVI BIMALCHAND JAIN, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE STAND OF THE REVENUE THAT THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION IS AN ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE AND THE PROFIT O F THE TRANSACTIONS IS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME . IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ASSESSED THIS AMOUNT AS BUSINESS INCOME. IN ANY EVENT, I AM BOUND TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH IS MATTER. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTIONS. SOME OF THESE EVIDENCES ARE (A) EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OF SHARES, ( B) EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES MADE BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHE QUE, COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS, (C) COPY OF BALANCE SHEET DISCLOSING INVESTMENTS, ( D) COPY OF DEMAT STATEMENT REFLECTING PURCHASE, (E) COPY OF MERGER ORDER PASSE D BY THE HIGH COURT , (F) COPY OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES ON MERGER, (G) EVIDENCE OF SALE OF SHARES THROUGH THE STOCK EXCHANGE, (H) COPY OF DEMAT STATEMENT SHOWING THE S ALE OF SHARES, (I) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT REFLECTING SALE RECEIPTS, (J) COPY OF BRO KERS LEDGER, (K) COPY OF CONTRACT NOTES ETC. 7. THE PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN IN THESE CASE LAWS BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS BY THE ITAT KOLKATA ON THESE ISSUE S ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE C ASE. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THOUGH NOT LEAVING HIS GROUND, COUL D NOT CONTROVERT THE CLAIM OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE IN QUES TION IS COVERED BY THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HI GH COURT AND THE ITAT. I AM BOUND TO FOLLOW THE SAME. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I DELETE THE AD DITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 5. COUPLED WITH THIS, HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURTS OTHER DECISIONS IN CIT VS. RUNGTA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ITA NO.105 OF 2016, CIT VS. SHREYAHI GANGULY ITA NO. 196 OF 2012, M/S CLASSIC GROWERS LTD VS. CIT ITA NO . 129 OF 2012 ALSO HOLD SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN SCRIPS SUPPORTED BY THE CORRESPONDI NG RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO BE GENUINENE. I ADOPT THE ABOVE EXTRACTED REASONING MUTATIS MUTANDIS THEREFORE TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED STCL DISALLOWANCE / ADDITION OF RS.28, 23,500/-. UNEXPLAINED COMMISSION EXPENDITURE DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY SHALL A UTOMATICALLY FOLLOW SUIT AS A NECESSARY COROLLARY. NO OTHER ARGUMENT OR GROUND HA S BEEN AGITATED BEFORE ME DURING PAGE 41 THE COURSE OF HEARING. THIS LEAD CASE ITA NO.2623/KOL/2018 IS ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. [ SAME ORDER TO FOLLOW IN ALL THE REMAINING EIGHTY NI NE APPEAL(S) ] IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINCTION BEING POINTED OUT AT REVENUES B EHEST. 6. ALL THESE ASSESSEES NINETY APPEALS ARE ALLOWED IN ABOVE TERMS. A COPY OF THE INSTANT COMMON ORDER BE PLACED IN THE RESPECTIVE CA SE FILE(S). ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26/06/2019 SD/- (S.S. GODARA) J UDICIAL MEMBER KOLKATA, *DKP/SR.PS # - 26/06/2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /APPELLANT-ANSHEJ SHAHLANSDOWNHEIGHT,FL-9A, 6, SARA T BOSE RD. KOL-20/ SHI SAURAV AGARWAL SUKHI SANSAR,1 34, SALKIA SCHOOL RD. SALKIA, HOWRAH PIN-711106/SUNIL D SHAH LANSDOWN HEIGHT, FL-9A, 6 SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-20/DEO CHAND SAMSUKHA, HU F, SHOP NO. B-17, GR. FLOOR, 22, BONFIELD LANE, DALHOUSE, KOLKATK A-001/KUNTAL PRASAD CHATTERJEE, 10, CLIVE ROW, 5 TH FL. KOLKATA-001/RINA SAHANA/SUSHILA BAID C/O S.N.G HOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEBEN BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA , P.S CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY- 712105/SMT MUKTA AGARWAL 1, INDIA EXCHANGE PLACE-1 ST FL, R.NO.110, KOLKATA-001/ BABITA AGARWAL-SANJAY KR. AGARWAL/SUNITA SANGANERIA-SANJEE V SANGANAEREIA(HUF)-SANJEEV SANGANAERIA FLAT NO.5D 24 PRINCE ANWAR SHAH ROAD, K OLKATA-33/AYUSH SAHA-ALKA J. SHAH LANDSDOWN HEIGHT, FL-9A, 6, SARAT BOSE ROAD, KOLKAT A-20/SUDHEER KR. JAIN C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1 G IBSON LANE, SUIT 213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-69/SRI SOUMITRA JOSHI, 11, GOENKA LANE KOLK ATA-007/BIMAL JAJODIA C/O P.K. MADTHUR, ADVOCATE, 1, MEREDITH STREET, KOLKATA-72/S HRI MAHENDRA KR. PERIWAL, R.NO.19, 1 ST FL, BHAGAT CHAMBER, 12A, NETAJI SUBASH ROAD, KOLKAT A-001/SUSHIL KUMAR DAGA (HUF), 3A, MULLICK STREET, C/O. SUSHIL COMPANY, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-007/ SRI SUMIT JAIN, 12/2 SOVARAM BYSACK STREET, BURRABAZAR, KOLKATA-007/RAJESH KR. S ARDA HUF 412, MUKTI CHAMBERS, 4, CLIVE ROW, KOLKATA-001/SANDEEP REDH (HUF), 133, CAN NING ST. 3 RD FL, R.NO.24, KOLKATA- 001/M/S NEELESH CHOUDHUR (HUF), 10, OLD POST OFFICE ST. KOLKATA-001/SHRI RAJENDRA KR. HIRAWAT, R.NO.33, 3 RD FLOOR, 133, CANNING STREET, KOLKATA-001/SMT.SIKHA BAGARIA, 200, BANGUR AVENUE, BLOCK-A, KOLKATA-55/SRI KESHRI SINGH KOCHAR C/O SRI S.L. KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, ASHSUTOSH CHOWDHURY AVENUE, KOLKAA-19/ SUMAN KUMAR-SUNITA GOYAL, 32, EZRA STREET, R.NO.854, TODI CORNER, KOLKATA-001/SWA TI BAJAJ, C/O SUBASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LAN E, SUITE 213, 2 ND FL, KOLKATA-69/MANISH YADUKA SHREE KRISHAN CHAMBERS, 78, BENTINCK STREET, 5 TH FLOOR, SUITE NO.1E, KOLKATA- 001/POOJA JHUNJHUNWALA-AAYUSH JHUNJHUNWALA(HUF-AAYU SH JHUNJHUNWALA, HB-319, SECTOR-III, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA-106/M/S VINOD K R. AGRAWAL-VINITA AGRAWAL LAVEL-3, CENTRAL PLAZA, C-11, 41, B.B. GANGULY STREET, KOLKA TA-12/KIRAN AGARWAL- SHYAM KR. BAID- TAPATI SAHANA-SOUVIK SAHANA-SURAJ SAHANA C/O S.N.GH OSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES SEVEN PAGE 42 BROTHERS LODGE, P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY-712105/ SHRI VIVEK MADHOGARIA-KAILASH KR. MADHOGARIA(HUF), 42, DOBSON ROAD, 2 ND FLOOR, GOLABARI, HOWRAH- 711101/SMT. SHILPI JAIN 174, RABINDRA SARANI, BURRA BAZAR, KOLKATA-007/SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR AGRAWAL, CF-307, SALT LAKE CITY, SECTOR-1, NORTH 24 PARGANAS, KOLKATKA-64/SHRI RAM AWATAR DHOOT, 29B, RABINDRA SARANI, 3 RD FLOOR, R.NO.10E, KOLKATA-73/VINOD KR. AGARWAL, 5 CLIVE ROW, R.NO.23, 1 ST FLOOR, KOLKATA-001/AJAY KR. SHAW, 12, A.L. DAW ROA D, BUDGE BUDGE, KOLKATA-137/P.K. SHARMA SONS HUF, 4 FAIRLIE PLACE, HMP HOUSE, 1 ST FL. R.NO.104, KOLKATA-001/BEGRAJ AGARWAL & OTHERS (HUF), DIAMOND HERITAGE UNIT NO. 609, 16 STRAND ROAD,KOLKATKA-001/MOHINI DEVI PANSARI, PODDAR COURT , GATE NO.3, 2 ND FL. 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-01/PRAMOD BAID HUF 313, TODI CHAMBE RS, 2 LAL BAZAR ST. KOLKATA-001/SHRI RAJESH AGARWAL 88/2A, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI RD. 5 TH FL. KOLKATA-16/RITU JAIN 8B, DIAMOND TOWER, 37, DIAMOND HARBOUR RD. KOLKATA-27/M/S PREMC HAND HANUMAN MAL BUCHA (HUF) 10, MURLIDHAR SEN LANE, BURRABAZAR, KOLKAKTA-001/SH RI GOURAV GUPTA-SHRI SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA, C/O. K.N. GUPTA & ASSOCIATES, 37A, BENTINCK STREET, R.NO.414, 4 TH FL, KOLKATA- 69/SHRI SHYAM SUNDAR DIDWANIA, DB-06, SECTOR-1, SAL T LAKE CITY KOLKATA-64/SHRI SIDHARTH DASSANI, WARDLEY HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, 25C, SWALLOW LANE, OLD CHINA BAZAR, KOLKATA /SUSHILA MADHOGARIA-SATISH MADHOGARIA(HUF)-MD. IRSHAD AZIZ/M D. SHARIQUE C/O S.L.KOCHAR, ADVOCATE, 5, AHUTOSH CHOWDHURY AVENUE, KOLKATA-19/P ARICHAY TRADECOM PVT. LTD. C/O RSVPC & CO. 41A AJC BOSE RD. SUITE NO.613, 6 TH FL.KOLKAKT-17/KAMRAJ TRADERS & FOODS PVT. LTD., 36, STRAND ROAD, 1 ST FLOOR, R.NO.8, KOLKATA-001/SAJJADBHAI NURFUDDIN NANDARBARWALA, -PREMLATA AGARWAL, C/O SUBASH AGARWA L & ASSOCIATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE 213, 2 ND FL, KOLKAKTA-69/SRI RAJESH AGARWAL 3/1 AHMED MAMUJ I ST, G.T. ROAD(N), HOWRAH-711204/NARENDRA KR. GOYAL C/O SUBAS H AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES, SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKTA-69/PAWAN KR. AGARWAL, 7, RABINDRA SARANI, 5 TH FLOOR, KOKATA-001/KAMLESH AGARWAL, FLAT NO.1 4K, B LOCK-4, WINDSOR CASATLE, 74/1, NARKELDANGA MAIN ROAD, KOLKATA-54/JEMISH SHAH , 70, CANNING STREET, KOLKATA- 001/S.N.LAHOTI & SONS(HUF), 171, RAMAKRISHNA LANE, SHIBPUR, HOWRAH-711102/MAAHESH LAHOTI 171, RAMKRISHNA LANE, OP. PALLY MATH, SHIBPU R, HOWWRAH-711102/DAYAMAYE MARBLE & GRANITE, C/O. S.N.GHOSH & ASSOCIATES, ADVO CATES, SEVEN BROTHERSLODGE P.O. BUROSHIBTALA, P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY-712105/ ANAND LOHIA 24A, SHREE NIKETAN, 20, DOBSON LANE, HOWRAH-711101/PUNAM PARSURAMKA C/O SUB ASH AGARWAL & ASSOCIATES SIDDHA GIBSON, 1, GIBSON LANE, SUITE-213, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-69/KRISHNA KR. PARSURAMKA, 223A, N.S. ROAD, 7 TH FL, FORTUNA TOWER R.NO.4A, KOLKATA-001/KUSHAL AGAR WAL IDEAL GRAND, BLOCK- A, FLAT NO.7F,456, G.T. ROAD (SOUTH), HOWRAH-711102 /DINESH KR. AGARWAL, 21, HEMANTA BASU SARANIA, 2 ND FLOOR, UNIT-227, KOLKATA-001/SRI GOPAL KRISHNA BAN KA, 16/2C, ARMENIAN STREET, BURRA BAZAR, KOKATA-001/ASHOK KR. REDH (HUF ), 133, CANNING STREET, 3 RD FLOOR, R.NO. 24, KOLKATA-001/SMT. ANJU DEVI PATWARI, 19, S YNAGOGUE ST. 5 TH FL, KOLKATA-01/RAVI KR. DAGA-RAVI KR. DAGA[HUF], 3A, MULLICK STREET, KO LKATA-007/PAWAN KR. GOENKA, TODI CHAMBERS, 2, LAL BAZAR STREET, 2 ND FL, R.NO.217, KOLKATA-001, M/S PRAKASH PATAWARI [H UF] P-12, NEW HOWRAH BRIDGE APPROACH ROAD, BURRABAZAR, KOLKATA/SRI UTTAM JHAWAR 71/A/2, ALIPORFE ROAD, KOLKATA-27/RITA DEVI AGARWAL, 2 ND FL, AKSHYTARA APARTMENT, SEVOKE ROAD, 2 ND MILE, SILIGURI-734001 2. /RESPONDENT-ITO WARD, 31(3), 10B, MIDDLETON ROW,4 TH FL. KOLKATA/ITO WARD 63(2), 169 AJC B OSE RD. 9 TH FLOOR, R.NO.16, KOLKATA-14/ITO WD. 31(4), 10B, MIDDLETON ROW, 4 TH FL,KOLKATA-54/ITO WD/34(3), 10, SHANTI PALLY, UTTA RAPAN, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA-107/ ITO WD-35(3), 110, SHA NTIPALLY, 9 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA KOLKATA/ITO WD-23(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, G.T. R OAD, KHADINA MORE, P.O.&P.S. CHINSURAH, PIN-712101/ACIT, CIRCLE-35, 110, SHANTIP ALY, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-43(4), 3 GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-001/ITO WD-25(2), AAYAK AR BHAWAN, DAKSHIN, KOLKATA-68/ITO WD-31(3), 10-B, MIDDLETON ROW, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-71/ITO WD-63(1), 169, AJC BOSE ROAD , PAGE 43 BAMBOO VILLA, 9 TH FLOOR, KOLKATAK-14/ITO WD-45(2), 3, GOVERNMENT PLA CE(EAST), GR. FL. KOLKATA-001/ITO WD-34(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 1 10, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-108/ITO WD-35(4), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-108/ITO WD-45(2), 3, GOVT. PLACE, GR. FL, R.NO.19, KOLKATA-001/ITO WD-36(1), A AYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 8 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-108/ITO WD-36(3), AAYKAR BHAWA N, POORVA, R.NO.812, 8 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-35(2), AAYAKAR BHAW AN, POORVA, 7 TH FL. R.NO.716, 110, SHANTIPALLI, E.M.BYEPASS, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-36(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 8 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-108/ITO WD-49(3), UTTARAP AN, MANICKTALA, CIVIC CENTRE, ULTADANGA/ITO WD-35(3), 110, SHANTIPALLY, AAYAKAR B HAWAN, POORVA, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD- 36(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN (POORVA), 110, SHANTIPALLY, K OLKATA-107/ITO WD-36(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 9 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-108/ITO WD/22(4), 54/1 RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA/ITO WD-51(2) UTTRAPAN MARKET B UILDING, MANICKTALA, CIVIC CENTRE, KOLKATA-54/ITO WD-37(3), 3. GOVT. PLACE (WEST),1 ST FL. KOLKATA-001/ACIT, CIRCLE-61, 169, AJC BOSE ROAD, BAMBOO VILLA CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDIN G, 9 TH FL. R.NO.7 KOLKAKTA-14/ITO WD-23(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN, G.T. RD. KHADINA MORE, P.O .&P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY PIN-712101/ITO WD-2(3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN KACHARI ROAD , COURT COMPOUND, P.O.&P.S. BURDWAN, DIST. PURBA BARDDHAMAN-713101/ITO WD-47(4) /45(1), 3, GOVT. PLACE, 1 ST FL. KOLKATA/ITO WD-35(1), 110, SHANTIPALLY, 7 TH FL. E.M. BYPASS, KOLKATA/ ITO WD-22(4), 54/1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA/ITO WED-36(4), AAYK AR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-107/ACIT, CIR-26(2), AAYKAR BH AWAN, DAKSHIN, 2 ND FL. 2, GARIAHAT ROAD (SOUTH), KOLKATA-68/ITO WD-35(1), 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA-107/ACIT, CIRCLE-34, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, 4 TH FL, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-35(4), AAYKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-35(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 9 TH FLOOR, 110, SHANTI PALLY, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-31(1), KOLKATA/ITO WD-3(3), NR. SUBASH PARK, SOUTH LAKE ROAD, PURULIAI-723101/ITO WD-34(4) /36(2) POORVA 110, SHANTIPALLY, 7-8 TH FL, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-50(3), MANICKTALA CIVIC CENT ER, UTTARAPAN COMPLEX, KOLKATA-54/ ITO WD-63(1), BAMBOOVILA, 9 TH FLOOR, 169 AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-20/ITO WD-47(4) /48(4), 33, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKATA-01/ITO WD-3 5(2), AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-1(2)/WD-4(4), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE S Q. AAYAKAR BHAWANA, KOLKATA-69 /ITO WD-36(3), AAYKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTIPA LLY, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-46(1), 3, GOVT. PLACE, KOLKATA-001/ITO WD-22(4), 54/1, RAFI A HMED KIDWAI ROAD, KOLKATA-16/ITO WD-45(1), 3, GOVT. PLACE, KOLKATA-001/ITO WD-35(2), AAYKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-48(4)-ITO WD-47(3), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOLKTA- 001/ITO WD-2(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, HOOOGHLY, G.T. ROAD , KHADINA MORE, P.O.7P.S. CHINSURAH, DIST. HOOGHLY-712101/ITO WD-34(2), AAYKA R BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-62(2), KOLKATA/ITO WD-22(4)-, 54 /1, RAFI AHMED KIDWAI ROAD, 4 TH FL, KOLKATA-16/ITO WD-46(1), 3, GOVT. PLACE (WEST), KOL KATA-01/ITO WD-34(4)-34(2), 110, SHANTIPALLY, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-34(2), 10, MIDDLETON ROW KOLKATA-001/ITO WD-45(1),3, GOVT. PLACE, KOLKATA-00 1/ITO WD-35(1), AAYKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-107/ITO WD-63(3), 169, AJC BOSE ROAD, KOLKATKA-14, ITO WD-2(2), AAYAKAR BHAWA, MATIGARA, SISLIGURI-734 010 3. & ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( - / CIT (A) 5. ) ,,& , & / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. . / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ &,
Mehul