TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are the facts of all these cases under consideration and others, if any. Hence, the issue is required to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A). With these directions, the CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 1875/PUN/2018, 1876/PUN/2018, 1877/PUN/2018 And ITA No 1878/PUN/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2019 - SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM For The Appellant : Smt. Deepa Khare For The Respondent : Shri M. K. Verma ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :- There are four appeals under consideration. All these appeals relate to the same family and they are filed with common grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.8,17,800/- 3. Arif Abdul Razak Hingora (ITA No.1878/PUN/2018) Rs.8,73,073/- 3. During the first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) confirmed the same and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The contents of para 5.2 are relevant in this regard and the same are extracted hereunder :- 5.2 The test of human probability was also applied by the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Som Nath Maini Vs. CIT (306 ITR 414). In this case, the assessee in his return declared loss from sale of gold jewellery and also declared a short-term capital gain from sale of shares so that the two almost matched each other. This simple tax planning became ineffectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Balbir Chand Mani (111 TTJ 160). In the present case, it is beyond preponderance of probability that the fantastic sale price of a little known share i.e. Mishka Finance Trading Ltd. without economic or financial basis, would increase from ₹ 0.37/- to ₹ 45/- per share. If one considers the fact that the assessee got 24,000/- shares against original 300 shares, the price increase is 120 times within 24 months which is evident from the fact that by investing ₹ 9000/-, the assessee has got ₹ 10,19,050/- (in respect of 22,500/- shares only) in a span of 24 months. There is no doubt that the capital gain was manipulated and bogus and was done only to claim exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ritten submission in support of the ground extracted above and claims of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the facts relating to the addition on account of Penny Stocks in this case are different from the cases relied on by the Assessing Officer/CIT(A). Bringing our attention to the recent judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. NDR Promoters Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA 49/2018, order dated 17.01.2019, in particular, the contents of para 13 of the said judgement of the High Court (supra), the ld. Counsel submitted that the facts are distinguishable and different. Referring to the other decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rajkumar B. Agarwal vs. DCIT vide ITA Nos.1648 1649/PUN/2015, order dated 04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and material referred to ipnr otbhae bailsisteiesssment order. The reasoning given is contrary to human , for in the normal course of conduct, no one will take investment of such huge amounts without being concerned about the return and safety of such investment. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The substantial question of law framed above is accordingly answered in favour of the appellant-revenue and against the respondent-assessee. There would be no order as to costs. 9. Considering all the facts of the case and the judgements cited above in force, I am of the opinion the matter should be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for examining the facts of the said cases and consider the submission of the ld. AR for the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
