2014 (11) TMI 1065 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of alleged sale of shares - Held that - The facts of the present case are similar to the earlier appeal decided by the Tribunal on similar facts in the case of Shri Anantrai B Shah vs. ITO 2012 (12) TMI 966 - ITAT MUMBAI wherein held neither the statement of Mukesh Chokshi was provided to the assessee nor there was any cross examination of Mukesh Chokshi whereas contrary to that the assessee has filed all the details required for providing for purchase of shares were genuine. It is not a case of the department whatever the consideration was paid by the assessee through cheque for purchasing of shares have come back to the assessee under the garb of bogus purchases as there is no evidence against the assessee. Keeping in mind all these facts and circumstances of the case thus hold that the addition made and sustained on account of purchase of shares only on the basis of statement of Mukesh Chokshi was not justified - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to validity of reassessment proceedings and addition of Rs. 1,45,125 representing sale and purchase of allegedly bogus shares.

Validity of Reassessment Proceedings:
The appeal challenged the validity of reassessment proceedings along with the addition of Rs. 1,45,125 representing the sale and purchase of shares deemed bogus by the department. The AO reopened the case based on information regarding accommodation entries obtained by the assessee from a company. The assessee had purchased shares for a small amount and sold them for a significantly higher sum, leading to suspicion. The AO added the amount to the assessee's income, a decision upheld by the CIT(A). Despite multiple hearing notices, the assessee failed to appear, resulting in an ex-parte decision in favor of the department.

Addition of Rs. 1,45,125 for Alleged Bogus Shares:
The Tribunal reviewed the case and compared it to a similar matter previously decided, where a similar addition was deleted due to lack of evidence against the assessee. In that case, the Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had provided complete details, including purchase documents and payment evidence, while no substantial evidence was presented against the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted the absence of a statement from a key witness and lack of cross-examination as crucial factors in deleting the addition. Relying on this precedent, the Tribunal in the present case also deleted the addition of Rs. 1,45,125 related to the alleged bogus shares. Consequently, since the addition was deleted, the issue regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings was deemed academic and not further adjudicated upon.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the addition of Rs. 1,45,125 was deleted following the precedent set by a previous Tribunal decision. The judgment was pronounced in an open court on November 27, 2014.