VISHWAS MARKETING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD 26(4), NEW DELHI

ITA 3827/DEL/2019

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Vishwas Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. against the orders of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The primary contention revolves around the disallowance of short-term capital loss and denial of exemption under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act on long-term capital gains from the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer had treated the transactions as bogus based on findings from the Kolkata Investigation Wing, which suggested manipulation of share prices. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not adequately verified the genuineness of the transactions and directed a re-assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41918 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 12-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2019
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT v. Krishna Devi, Karuna Garg v. ITO, Mac Dowell & Company v. CIT, Sumati Dayal v. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record; Bogus
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 131; 133(6); 13

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No [Assessment Year Vishwas Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd., 4, Local Shopping Centre, Bhanot Apartment Madangir, New Delhi-110062. PAN-AABCV3214D APPELLANT Appellant by Respondent by Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN These two appeals filed orders passed by Ld.CIT(A) for the Assessment Years similar grounds have been raised, together for hearing and are being decided by way of this consolidated order for the sake of brevity. ITA No.3827/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014 2. We take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2014 i.e. ITA No.3827/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “H” BENCH: NEW DELHI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3827 & 3572/Del/2019 Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16] Vishwas Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd., 4, Local Shopping Centre, Bhanot Apartment 110062. vs ITO, Ward-26(4), New Delhi. RESPONDENT Shri S.Krishnan, CA & Shri Harshit Chouhan, Adv. Shri Amit Katoch, Sr.DR 12.09.2024 Date of Pronouncement 06.11.2024 ORDER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. : filed by the assessee are directed against the s passed by Ld.CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, dated 25.02.2019 and 21.02.2019 (“AYs”) 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively similar grounds have been raised, both appeals of the assessee are together for hearing and are being decided by way of this consolidated order for A No.3827/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2014-15] We take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2014 19 as a lead case. Page | 1 SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & Shri Harshit Chouhan, Adv. irected against the different 19 and 21.02.2019 respectively. Since the assessee are taken up together for hearing and are being decided by way of this consolidated order for 15] We take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2014-15 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.08.2014, declaring loss of ( 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 15.12.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act, were issued and served upon the ass assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and submitted the relevant information as and when called for. 4. The assessee company importers, exports marketi commission agents, forwarding and clearing agents. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) observed that the assessee has declared dividend income during the year and accordi asked to file scrip-wise details and transactions of shares alo documents of purchase and sales. In response thereto, the assessee has submitted the details of transaction AO noticed that the assessee has purchased shares of SRK Industries Ltd. (“SRK”) in the month of December, 2013 and sold the same in the month of March, 2014 which resulted the above said transactions, the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to SRK and asked to file the various information mentioned in the above notice notice issued by the AO is reproduced at page 4 of the assessme response thereto, SRK has submitted th After considering the above details, the AO observed that the details submitted Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on declaring loss of (-) INR 21,119/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 15.12.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act, were issued and served upon the assessee. In response thereto, assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and submitted the relevant information as and when called for. The assessee company is engaged in the business as buyer, sellers, importers, exports marketing, stockists dealers, distributors agents, brokers, commission agents, forwarding and clearing agents. During the assessment the Assessing Officer (“AO”) observed that the assessee has declared dividend income during the year and accordingly, the assessee was wise details and transactions of shares along documents of purchase and sales. In response thereto, the assessee has submitted the details of transactions of purchases and sales of AO noticed that the assessee has purchased shares of SRK Industries Ltd. (“SRK”) in the month of December, 2013 and sold the same in the month of March, 2014 which resulted in a loss of INR 1,71,72,155/-. In order to verify tions, the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to SRK file the various information mentioned in the above notice notice issued by the AO is reproduced at page 4 of the assessme response thereto, SRK has submitted the details vide letter dated 05.12.2016 After considering the above details, the AO observed that the details submitted Page | 2 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on . The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 15.12.2014. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act, essee. In response thereto, Ld.AR of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and submitted the as buyer, sellers, ng, stockists dealers, distributors agents, brokers, commission agents, forwarding and clearing agents. During the assessment the Assessing Officer (“AO”) observed that the assessee has ngly, the assessee was gwith primary documents of purchase and sales. In response thereto, the assessee has of purchases and sales of scrips. The AO noticed that the assessee has purchased shares of SRK Industries Ltd. (“SRK”) in the month of December, 2013 and sold the same in the month of . In order to verify tions, the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to SRK file the various information mentioned in the above notice. The notice issued by the AO is reproduced at page 4 of the assessment order. In ails vide letter dated 05.12.2016. After considering the above details, the AO observed that the details submitted by SRK are incomplete and this 10(38) of the Act by various operators and itself falls under accommodation entry Gain (“LTCG”). The AO provide bogus LTCG by various rigging, further relied on the detailed investigation carried out by the Kolkata Investigation Wing, considering made the detailed analysis of SRK scrips and relied on the various recorded by Kolkata Investigation Vora, Shri Jai Kishan and Shri Anil Kedia. He came to the conclusion relying in the investigation carried on by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata scrip is a penny stock and accordingly, the assessee was asked to details of the transaction. In response thereto, the assessee has submitted reply dated 26.12.2016, same is reproduced by the A assessment order. In transactions carried on by the assessee are genuine and these transactions have been routed through the assessee, the AO relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme case of Mac Dowell & Company claim of the assessee that all the channels and the transactions are genuine. Ac Human Probability Test and relied losses claim by the assessee. by SRK are incomplete and this scrip was used to get bogus exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act by various operators and according to AO, this tr under accommodation entry in providing bogus Long Term Capital Gain (“LTCG”). The AO analyzed the scrips and modus operandi various operators and he analyzed the method of price d on the detailed investigation carried out by the Kolkata considering the unusual loss claimed by the assessee made the detailed analysis of SRK scrips and relied on the various Investigation Wing from Shri Bidyoot Sarkar, Shri Sanjay Jai Kishan and Shri Anil Kedia. He came to the conclusion relying in the investigation carried on by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata is a penny stock and accordingly, the assessee was asked to details of the transaction. In response thereto, the assessee has submitted reply dated 26.12.2016, same is reproduced by the AO at pages 22 In the reply submitted by the assessee by the assessee are genuine and these transactions through banking channels. By rejecting the submissions of the assessee, the AO relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme & Company and Sumati Dayal. Cases to reject the m of the assessee that all the transactions are routed through banking channels and the transactions are genuine. Accordingly, he applied the Test and relied on several other decisions to the assessee. Page | 3 exemption u/s this transaction bogus Long Term Capital modus operandi used to and he analyzed the method of price d on the detailed investigation carried out by the Kolkata by the assessee. He made the detailed analysis of SRK scrips and relied on the various statement m Shri Bidyoot Sarkar, Shri Sanjay Jai Kishan and Shri Anil Kedia. He came to the conclusion fully relying in the investigation carried on by the Investigation Wing, Kolkata that is a penny stock and accordingly, the assessee was asked to submit the details of the transaction. In response thereto, the assessee has submitted at pages 22-23 of the the reply submitted by the assessee, that the by the assessee are genuine and these transactions By rejecting the submissions of the assessee, the AO relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the ases to reject the routed through banking cordingly, he applied the to disallow the 5. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A)-24, New Delhi and filed a detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us, raising following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order of the applicable law, and therefore it is bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred term capital loss of Rs. 1,71,72,155/ SRK Industries Ltd. is not admissible to the appellant in computing its income. 3. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not term capital gain earned by the assessee from sale of shares of Alliance Integrated Limited, while the conditions for such exemption had been fulfilled. 4. The ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the clear finding that the appellant had shown long Rs. 1,63,53,614/ which STT had been paid and that such exempt specie of income cannot be set off against other taxable specie 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred in reversing this finding by mentioning that no evidence has been furnished that the shares of Alliance Integrated Limited were held for more than 12 months. 6. The ld. CIT(A) erred in recording this finding wit opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence before him that these shares were held for more than one year, particularly when the Ld. from the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before 24, New Delhi and filed a detailed submissions. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of raised by the assessee. with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us, raising following grounds of appeal:- The order of the ld. CIT(A) is against the facts of the case and the applicable law, and therefore it is bad in law. d. CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the ld. A.O. that short term capital loss of Rs. 1,71,72,155/- incurred on sale of shares of SRK Industries Ltd. is not admissible to the appellant in computing d. CIT(A) erred in not granting exemption u/s 10(38) on long term capital gain earned by the assessee from sale of shares of Alliance Integrated Limited, while the conditions for such exemption had been fulfilled. d. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the ld. A.O. had rec clear finding that the appellant had shown long-term capital gain of Rs. 1,63,53,614/- on sale of shares of Alliance Integrated Limited on which STT had been paid and that such exempt specie of income cannot be set off against other taxable specie of income or loss. d. CIT(A) erred in reversing this finding by mentioning that no evidence has been furnished that the shares of Alliance Integrated Limited were held for more than 12 months. d. CIT(A) erred in recording this finding without giving any opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence before him that these shares were held for more than one year, particularly when the Ld. Page | 4 from the above order, the assessee preferred appeal before 24, New Delhi and filed a detailed submissions. After considering the submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the grounds of with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us, d. CIT(A) is against the facts of the case and the . A.O. that short- incurred on sale of shares of SRK Industries Ltd. is not admissible to the appellant in computing granting exemption u/s 10(38) on long- term capital gain earned by the assessee from sale of shares of Alliance Integrated Limited, while the conditions for such exemption d. A.O. had recorded a term capital gain of on sale of shares of Alliance Integrated Limited on which STT had been paid and that such exempt specie of income of income or loss. d. CIT(A) erred in reversing this finding by mentioning that no evidence has been furnished that the shares of Alliance Integrated hout giving any opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence before him that these shares were held for more than one year, particularly when the Ld. AO had accepted the case of the assessee on the basis of record available with him. 7. These grounds are 8. The appellant begs for leaves to add, delete, modify or substitute any ground in the course of hearing as permitted by law. 7. At the time of hearing, Ld. (“AR”) brought to our notice basic facts on record and observation and Ld.CIT(A). Further, he submitted as under: ………………………… 10. “AO'S OWN ENQUIRIES HAVE CONFIRMED GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS: a. PB 78 to 95 genuineness of made by the Assessee. They have denied allotting any shares to the Assessee and confirmed that all purchases & sales were made through stock market. b. PB 97 onwards Securities Ltd., has also confirmed the said transactions, filing copies of the relevant contract notes and client ledger. They have also confirmed that they have not received any notice as to trades conducted in SRK Industries Ltd. 11. Thus, as per the AO's there is nothing to discredit genuineness of the transactions. The details as filed by third parties were in complete consonance with evidence initially led by the Assessee, at pages 45 to 49 of the original Paper Book. It is noteworthy that while the AO made enquiries in the matter, he was evasive as to results thereof. The documents referenced above have been obtained after numerous AO had accepted the case of the assessee on the basis of record available with him. These grounds are without prejudice to one another. The appellant begs for leaves to add, delete, modify or substitute any ground in the course of hearing as permitted by law. At the time of hearing, Ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee ur notice basic facts on record and observation , he submitted as under:- AO'S OWN ENQUIRIES HAVE CONFIRMED GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS: PB 78 to 95-SRK Industries Ltd. has duly confirmed genuineness of transactions of share purchase and sale as made by the Assessee. They have denied allotting any shares to the Assessee and confirmed that all purchases & sales were made through stock market. PB 97 onwards - The Assessee's broker, ie. Share India rities Ltd., has also confirmed the said transactions, filing copies of the relevant contract notes and client ledger. They have also confirmed that they have not received any notice as to trades conducted in SRK Industries Ltd. Thus, as per the AO's own enquiries, and evidence collected by him, there is nothing to discredit genuineness of the transactions. The details as filed by third parties were in complete consonance with evidence initially led by the Assessee, at pages 45 to 49 of the per Book. It is noteworthy that while the AO made enquiries in the matter, he was evasive as to results thereof. The documents referenced above have been obtained after numerous Page | 5 AO had accepted the case of the assessee on the basis of record The appellant begs for leaves to add, delete, modify or substitute any ground in the course of hearing as permitted by law.” of the assessee ur notice basic facts on record and observations of the AO AO'S OWN ENQUIRIES HAVE CONFIRMED GENUINENESS OF SRK Industries Ltd. has duly confirmed transactions of share purchase and sale as made by the Assessee. They have denied allotting any shares to the Assessee and confirmed that all purchases & sales The Assessee's broker, ie. Share India rities Ltd., has also confirmed the said transactions, filing copies of the relevant contract notes and client ledger. They have also confirmed that they have not received any notice as own enquiries, and evidence collected by him, there is nothing to discredit genuineness of the transactions. The details as filed by third parties were in complete consonance with evidence initially led by the Assessee, at pages 45 to 49 of the per Book. It is noteworthy that while the AO made enquiries in the matter, he was evasive as to results thereof. The documents referenced above have been obtained after numerous written requests for inspection of record, made over a year before the AO's office. NONE OF THE MATERIAL REFERRED BY THE AO NAMES THE ASSESSEE 12. The said material stands made part of the assessment order itself. It merely refers to evidence stating that certain persons were working to manipulate the share price of SRK Industries and cannot mean that anyone watching the share price on system and transacting through exchange was part of the said process. WHERE PURCHASE AND SALE CANNOT BE HELD BOGUS MERELY ON GENERIC INFORMATION 13. The six judgments as forming part of case clear view of the issue. Wherever purchase of shares is off or of private limited companies which have later been juggled together into a listed company, the Hon'ble Courts have l heavy onus on the Assessee to justify the transactions and share prices. However, where the said purchases and sales are all on market, as in the present case, it has been held that any reports of investigation officers would require corroborati judgments in PCIT v. Krishna Devi [(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)) and Karuna Garg v. ITO [(2019) 178 ITD 463 (Del in this regard. 14. In view of the facts and averments as above, it is most respectfully prayed that the Assessee's appeal merits allowance. SUBMISSIONS-GROUND 3. 4. & 5 15. The AO has accepted the claim as genuine, and CIT(A) has merely denied intervention to revised computation filed before him during appeal proceedings (PB evidence as to holding period of the said share (Page 15). The fa written requests for inspection of record, made over a year before fice. NONE OF THE MATERIAL REFERRED BY THE AO NAMES THE The said material stands made part of the assessment order itself. It merely refers to evidence stating that certain persons were working to manipulate the share price of SRK Industries Ltd. This does not and cannot mean that anyone watching the share price on system and transacting through exchange was part of the said process. WHERE PURCHASE AND SALE ARE ON MARKET, PROFITS / LOSSES CANNOT BE HELD BOGUS MERELY ON GENERIC INFORMATION The six judgments as forming part of case-law compilation present a clear view of the issue. Wherever purchase of shares is off or of private limited companies which have later been juggled together into a listed company, the Hon'ble Courts have l heavy onus on the Assessee to justify the transactions and share prices. However, where the said purchases and sales are all on market, as in the present case, it has been held that any reports of investigation officers would require corroboration from evidence. The judgments in PCIT v. Krishna Devi [(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)) and Karuna Garg v. ITO [(2019) 178 ITD 463 (Del-ITAT)] are relied upon In view of the facts and averments as above, it is most respectfully t the Assessee's appeal merits allowance. GROUND 3. 4. & 5-10(38) - Rs.1.71.72.155/- The AO has accepted the claim as genuine, and CIT(A) has merely denied intervention to revised computation filed before him during appeal proceedings (PB-02) because he is stated to not have evidence as to holding period of the said share (Page 15). The fa Page | 6 written requests for inspection of record, made over a year before NONE OF THE MATERIAL REFERRED BY THE AO NAMES THE The said material stands made part of the assessment order itself. It merely refers to evidence stating that certain persons were working Ltd. This does not and cannot mean that anyone watching the share price on system and transacting through exchange was part of the said process. ARE ON MARKET, PROFITS / LOSSES CANNOT BE HELD BOGUS MERELY ON GENERIC INFORMATION law compilation present a clear view of the issue. Wherever purchase of shares is off-market, or of private limited companies which have later been juggled together into a listed company, the Hon'ble Courts have laid down a heavy onus on the Assessee to justify the transactions and share prices. However, where the said purchases and sales are all on- market, as in the present case, it has been held that any reports of on from evidence. The judgments in PCIT v. Krishna Devi [(2021) 431 ITR 361 (Delhi)) and ITAT)] are relied upon In view of the facts and averments as above, it is most respectfully The AO has accepted the claim as genuine, and CIT(A) has merely denied intervention to revised computation filed before him during 02) because he is stated to not have evidence as to holding period of the said share (Page 15). The fact, apparent from the CIT(A)'s own conclusion, as well as the case record, is that the CIT(A) never asked for any details. The shares of Alliance Integrated Ltd. had been standing in the Assessee's balance sheet for preceding years. The claim could not hav rejected without examining the same. Directions in this regard are most respectfully prayed for. Placed for the most favourable consideration.” 8. On the other hand, Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue submitted that the assessee has held the scrip loss. In this regard, he brought wherein the statement of he involved in various scrips of SRK industries and provide various beneficiaries. He further submitted that Shri Bidyoot Sarkar has specifically mentioned about the pr brought to our notice page 6 of the assessment order wherein Kokata Investigation Wing has Industries and notices u/s 133(6) of the Act, were issued to them and these notices were returned back unserved with remark exist”. As per the Investigation Report, the AO made physi verification/inquiry and no such industries was in existence. brought to our notice page 13 of the assessment order wherein summons were issued to the Directors of the assessee company u/s 131 of the Act and it was specifically asked that why Assessment Year 2014-15. apparent from the CIT(A)'s own conclusion, as well as the case record, is that the CIT(A) never asked for any details. The shares of Alliance Integrated Ltd. had been standing in the Assessee's balance sheet for preceding years. The claim could not hav rejected without examining the same. Directions in this regard are most respectfully prayed for. Placed for the most favourable consideration.” the other hand, Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue submitted that the scrip of SRK less than six months and absorbed loss. In this regard, he brought to our notice page 16 of the assessment orde wherein the statement of Shri Bidyoot Sarkar was recorded and stated various scrips of SRK industries and provided bogus LTCG to e further submitted that Shri Bidyoot Sarkar has about the prices of SRK scrips were rigged. He also brought to our notice page 6 of the assessment order wherein Kokata been carried out detailed investigation of SRK Industries and notices u/s 133(6) of the Act, were issued to them and these notices were returned back unserved with remark “no such company/person As per the Investigation Report, the AO made physi verification/inquiry and no such industries was in existence. brought to our notice page 13 of the assessment order wherein summons were issued to the Directors of the assessee company u/s 131 of the Act and it was why the assessee did not invest in shares of SRK after Page | 7 apparent from the CIT(A)'s own conclusion, as well as the case record, is that the CIT(A) never asked for any details. The shares of Alliance Integrated Ltd. had been standing in the Assessee's balance sheet for preceding years. The claim could not have been rejected without examining the same. Directions in this regard are the other hand, Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue submitted that the absorbed huge o our notice page 16 of the assessment order recorded and stated that d bogus LTCG to e further submitted that Shri Bidyoot Sarkar has ces of SRK scrips were rigged. He also brought to our notice page 6 of the assessment order wherein Kokata been carried out detailed investigation of SRK Industries and notices u/s 133(6) of the Act, were issued to them and these “no such company/person As per the Investigation Report, the AO made physical verification/inquiry and no such industries was in existence. Further, he brought to our notice page 13 of the assessment order wherein summons were issued to the Directors of the assessee company u/s 131 of the Act and it was the assessee did not invest in shares of SRK after 9. In reply, they submitted that t in shares of SRK and the same are grouped under the head balance sheet”. In the statement, it was submitted that the investment was made, based on the past performance Director was unable to tell profit/turnover of previous assessment year. Further, he submitted that the assessee again Assessment Year 2015-16. He submitted that the two statements are contradictory and all these losses losses. 10. Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue further submitted that there fundamentals in SRK shares has sold these shares at loss. Therefore, the transactions are questionable considering the conduct of the assessee. 11. In re-joinder, Ld.AR of the assessee objected to the above submissio Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue, which is letter dated 04.10 of summons and statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act for AY 2015-16. Further, he bro where similar reminders were made to the AO has not provided any information . F 68 of the Paper Book wherein the assessee has applied t information relating to summons issued to Shri Vikram Singh Rawat and collected relevant summons and In reply, they submitted that the main aim of the assessee was in shares of SRK and the same are grouped under the head “investment in its In the statement, it was submitted that the investment was sed on the past performances and financials of SRK. However, the Director was unable to tell profit/turnover of previous assessment year. , he submitted that the assessee again bought the shares in 16. He submitted that the two statements are and all these losses recorded by the assessee are manufactur Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue further submitted that there SRK shares even then the prices has gone up. The assessee these shares at loss. Therefore, the transactions are the conduct of the assessee. joinder, Ld.AR of the assessee objected to the above submissio , he brought to our notice page 66 of the Paper Book letter dated 04.10.2023 and the request was made to the AO for copy of summons and statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act for AY 16. Further, he brought to our notice at page 67 of the Paper Book where similar reminders were made to the AO however, he submitted that AO information . Further, he brought to our notice at page 68 of the Paper Book wherein the assessee has applied through RTI summons issued to Shri Vikram Singh Rawat and summons and statement through Public Relation Officer, Page | 8 he main aim of the assessee was to invest “investment in its In the statement, it was submitted that the investment was and financials of SRK. However, the Director was unable to tell profit/turnover of previous assessment year. bought the shares in 16. He submitted that the two statements are manufactured Ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue further submitted that there are no . The assessee these shares at loss. Therefore, the transactions are itself joinder, Ld.AR of the assessee objected to the above submissions of he brought to our notice page 66 of the Paper Book 3 and the request was made to the AO for copy of summons and statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act for AYs 2014-15 & ught to our notice at page 67 of the Paper Book however, he submitted that AO ur notice at page hrough RTI for above summons issued to Shri Vikram Singh Rawat and statement through Public Relation Officer, Income Tax, New Delhi. F Industries dated 05.12.2016, details rel the assessee and Form 20B, certificate of registration, Memorandum of Association, further details of information received from Limited and the details of share all these information are kept on record from page Book. 12. Ld.AR for the assessee further submitted that all these crucial information are received by the AO and kept on record without even discussing about this in the assessment order. AO merely relied Human Probabilities Test and proceeded to disallow He further brought to our notice at page 24 of the Paper Book wherein contract note of purchase from Share India Securities Ltd. H assessee has purchased shares from share market therefore, the transactions are genuine and he prayed that this issu AO in order to appreciate the proper facts on record. 13. Considered the rival submissions material available on record observed from the statement of sale/purchases of scrips booked loss on sale of SRK scrips and merely relying on the Kolkata Investigation Wing report and the finances that the assessee has involved in booking bogus l . Further collected details submitted by the SRK .12.2016, details relating to denial of allotment of shares to and Form 20B, certificate of registration, Memorandum of further details of information received from Share India Securities Limited and the details of share investment by the assessee. He submitted that all these information are kept on record from pages 69 to 125 of the Paper Ld.AR for the assessee further submitted that all these crucial information are received by the AO before completion of the assessment order and kept on record without even discussing about this in the assessment ed upon the Kolkata Investigation Wing and applied Test and proceeded to disallow the claim of the assessee. ght to our notice at page 24 of the Paper Book wherein contract Share India Securities Ltd. He submitted that the assessee has purchased shares from share market therefore, the transactions are genuine and he prayed that this issue may be remitted back to the file of to appreciate the proper facts on record. Considered the rival submissions of both parties and perused the material available on record. We observed that in this case, the AO has tatement of sale/purchases of scrips that the assessee has booked loss on sale of SRK scrips and merely relying on the Kolkata Investigation Wing report and the finances of the SRK, came to the conclusion that the assessee has involved in booking bogus loss without properly verifying Page | 9 details submitted by the SRK allotment of shares to and Form 20B, certificate of registration, Memorandum of Share India Securities . He submitted that 69 to 125 of the Paper Ld.AR for the assessee further submitted that all these crucial assessment order and kept on record without even discussing about this in the assessment Wing and applied claim of the assessee. ght to our notice at page 24 of the Paper Book wherein contract e submitted that the assessee has purchased shares from share market therefore, the transactions remitted back to the file of and perused the . We observed that in this case, the AO has that the assessee has booked loss on sale of SRK scrips and merely relying on the Kolkata , came to the conclusion oss without properly verifying the transactions carried on by the assessee. This is clearly visible from the information collected by the assessee through R wherein several important information are collected by him and not out proper verification/investigation before rejecting the claim of the assessee. As per the assessment record available on record, the AO has completed the assessment hurriedly without properly appreciating the collected by him during the assessment proceedings. We observe that the information collected by the assessee through “RTI” goes to the root of the investigation and the relevant addition proposed by the AO. deem it fit and proper to remit this issu assessment denovo after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to consider the information available in the assessment records itself. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for s purposes. 14. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.3572/Del/2019 [ 15. Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2015-16 i.e. ITA.No.3572/Del/2019. 16. Facts in this case are also identical and similar as in ITA No.3827/Del/2019 [AY 2014 the transactions carried on by the assessee. This is clearly visible from the information collected by the assessee through Right to Information Act (“R important information are collected by him and not proper verification/investigation before rejecting the claim of the assessee. As per the assessment record available on record, the AO has completed the assessment hurriedly without properly appreciating the various information im during the assessment proceedings. We observe that the information collected by the assessee through “RTI” goes to the root of the investigation and the relevant addition proposed by the AO. deem it fit and proper to remit this issue back to the file of AO to redo the after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the consider the information available in the assessment records by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for s In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical .3572/Del/2019 [Assessment Year : 2015-16] Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 16 i.e. ITA.No.3572/Del/2019. Facts in this case are also identical and similar as in ITA No.3827/Del/2019 [AY 2014-15] except figures. Page | 10 the transactions carried on by the assessee. This is clearly visible from the ight to Information Act (“RTI”) important information are collected by him and not carried proper verification/investigation before rejecting the claim of the assessee. As per the assessment record available on record, the AO has completed the various information im during the assessment proceedings. We observe that the information collected by the assessee through “RTI” goes to the root of the Therefore, we e back to the file of AO to redo the after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the consider the information available in the assessment records by the assessee are accordingly, allowed for statistical In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical 16] Now, we take up the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year Facts in this case are also identical and similar as in ITA 17. We have heard Ld. perused the material available on record. are similar and identical to the figures. Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the same arguments in respect of grounds of appeal. No.3827/Del/2019 [AY 20 filed by the assessee as well. allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In the final result, both appeals of the assessee in 3572/Del/2019 for the allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) VICE PRESIDENT * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties perused the material available on record. We find that the facts and grounds to the ITA No.3827/Del/2019 [AY 20 Authorized Representatives of both the parties have same arguments in respect of grounds of appeal. Our decision in [AY 2014-15] would apply Mutatis Mutandi as well. Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. In the final result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA No for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 20 istical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06th November, 202 Sd/- (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Page | 11 Authorized Representatives of both the parties and We find that the facts and grounds [AY 2014-15] except ve adopted the decision in ITA in this appeal Grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly, In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.3827 & & 2015-16 are , 2024. S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "