Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1353 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - bogus LTCG/STCL - penny stock purchases - Whether there was no failure on the part of the Petitioner to fully and truly disclose material facts and information before the Assessing Officer during original assessment proceedings.? - HELD THAT:- As this Court finds that it contains a detailed report vis-a-vis beneficiaries of bogus LTCG/STCL pertaining to the Financial Year 2012-13 (Assessment Year 2013-14). The scrip sold by the Petitioner i.e. Mahanivesh (India) Ltd. is a subject matter of the said report. The report concludes that Mahanivesh (India) Ltd. is a penny stock and that the share price of Mahanivesh (India) Ltd. has been manipulated and bogus profits and losses have been booked in the name of the beneficiaries by trading in the scrip. The Petitioner has been identified and enlisted in the said report along with other beneficiaries. Thus this Court is of the view that despite lapse of four years and a scrutiny assessment, there is fresh tangible material in the present case in the form of information of beneficiaries of bogus LTCL/STCL report prepared by the office of Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) which reveals that Mahanivesh (India) Ltd. is a penny stock whose share price was manipulated in trade by way of a complex web of pre-arranged or artificial transactions to book long term/short term capital gain/loss to the beneficiaries. It is also stated in the said report that the petitioner-assessee was involved in the trade of penny stock, inasmuch as, it had sold shares of Mahanivesh (India) Ltd. in the concerned assessment year. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the present case is not a case of change of opinion. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kelvinator of India Ltd. [2010 (1) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] is not applicable to the present case. Consequently, as the file produced by the Assessing Officer has a note wherein, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax has granted his approval/sanction and the said document has not been challenged as forged or fabricated, this Court is of the view that prior sanction is on record. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the matter requires no interference in writ jurisdiction.
|