Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1190 - HC - Income TaxReopening of assessment u/s 147 - Validity of order passed u/s 148A(d) - penny stock purchases - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that in the impugned order passed u/s 148A(d) it is stated that the petitioner had sold penny stock i.e. M/s Solis Marketing Ltd. for a consideration - The impugned order further states that the petitioner did not furnish the Demat Account Statements or respond to the case on merits of case in his reply to the show cause notice. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in the case of another assessee who had similarly purchased the stock of M/s. Solis Marketing Ltd., the revenue department has alleged that the assessee therein had earned long term capital gain which was almost forty-five times the investment within a short span of time. In this case as well, a perusal of the petitioner’s reply dated 29th May, 2022 evidences that the shares purchased at face value of Rs.1 were sold at approx. Rs.50 per share earning the petitioner the LTCG which were admittedly claimed as exempt income. AO in the impugned order has also held that ‘the assessee is one of the beneficiary of generating bogus LTCG & STCG through M/s Solis Marketing Ltd. in planned manner and has routed her unaccounted income. The total consideration has escaped assessment’. In fact, in the impugned order, it has been repeatedly emphasised by the AO that the entire consideration received by the petitioner is income that has escaped assessment. Neither the bifurcation between the STCG and LTCG nor the calculation of income furnished by the petitioner can be accepted at this stage in writ proceedings. The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Abdul Majeed [2022 (7) TMI 865 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] has no application to the facts of the present case as in the said case ‘only cash deposit chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, without anything more’ This Court is of the view that the impugned order calls for no interference at this stage. However, the petitioner is given liberty to raise all contentions and submissions before the AO.
|