TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, 1961. ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law, by holding that assessee failed to prove the genuineness of share transaction resulting in LTCG u/s. 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961. iii) That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in upholding, the addition of Rs. 28,15,167/- u/s. 69C of Income Tax Act as expenses incurred as arranging the accommodation entry @3%. iv) That the appellant craves, leave to add or amend, any ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience. 3. At the time of hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee draw our attention towards the order passed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eds for the period 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015; show cause notice dated 19.12.2017; reply of show cause notice filed on 22.7.2017; Order of ITAT, Delhi in ITA No. 457/del/2018 AY 2014-15 in the matter of Arun Kumar vs. ACIT Cir.1 Noida dated 5.11.2018; Order of ITAT, Kolkata C Bench ITA No. 2281/Kol/2017 AY 2014-15 in the matter of Navneet Agarwal, Legal Heir of L. Kiran Agarwal vs. ITO, Ward 35(3) dated 20.7.2018; order of ITAT, Delhi Bench SMC Bench in ITA No. 4565/Del/2018 AY 2014-15 in the matter of Anubhav Jain vs. ITO Ward 35(5), Delhi dated 26.11.2018; Companies (Issue of Share Certificate) Rules, 1960 and ROC Certificate for change of name. Secondly, he argued that the assessee has raised 05 grounds of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), but th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... he requested to allow the appeal of the assessee. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR strongly opposed the request of the assessee regarding no opportunity given to examine and cross examine the witnesses as well as non-furnishing of the documents as requested by the assessee. He further stated that sufficient opportunity has been given to the assessee, which has not been availed by the assessee and he further stated that AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of detailed enquiry. On asking by the Bench from the Ld. DR that the ground no. 3 raised by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the non providing opportunity for examination and cross examination of the witnesses i.e. Sh. Raj Kumar Kedia and Soma Chou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition made and benefit denied is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 3. That on the facts of the case and in law, assessing officer erred in not confronting the appellant with the alleged evidence collected at the back of the appellant in an effort to allow the appellant to examine and cross examine the witnesses thereby holding the transaction as bogus without appreciating the fact that shares script is listed on the stock exchange and is being traded regularly as incorporated in the body of the order. The assessment framed and the income assessed is illegal and bad in law. 4. That on the facts of the case and in law the AO erred in further estimating a sum of Rs. 28,15,167/- being commission @3% treating the same as unexplain....