TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corroborate the transaction in question. Thus I am of the opinion in the facts discussed supra, the AO was not justified in assessing the sale proceeds of shares as undisclosed income. Therefore, respectfully following the order of coordinate bench in Om Prakash Mundhra 2019 (3) TMI 559 - ITAT KOLKATA] and the finding of facts as stated in (supra) am inclined to set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO not to treat the long term capital on sale of shares of M/s JIL and also the commission expenses as bogus and delete the consequential additions. Therefore, the appeal of assessee is allowed. - I.T.A. No. 1812/Kol/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2019 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM For the Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM Both these appeals preferred by the different assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A), Siliguri dated 03.07.2018 and 04.07.2018 for AY 2015-16 respectively. Since grounds are common and facts are identical, both these appeals are disposed of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The AO on perusal of the financial results of M/s. JIL took note that for last few years including years from purchase to sale, financial health of the company had been deteriorating continuously or not increased significantly. However, the AO wondered as to how the share price and market capitalization of the scrip was shooting up almost vertically. According to AO, all the blue chip companies which are present in the Sensex, the sensitive index of the BSE, which have bulk market share in terms of market capitalization and business such as Reliance Industries Ltd, Larsen Tubro Ltd, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Coal India Ltd, were not even able to double their price in the market during the same period. On the other hand, JACKSON INVESTMENTS LTD which has almost zero fundamental strength has shot up more than 30 times in a short span of time. This, according to AO was because, the parallel forces of accommodation entry providers were actively participating with their pre-settled game plan. Further, Scrips of JACKSON INVESTMENTS LTD has been barred from the Stock exchanges on the direction from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, as it has been identified as a 'shell com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and added in the total income for the Asstt Year 2015-16 within the scope of section 68 of the Act. Considering the reply of the assessee, AO did not accept the assessee s claim of LTCG and exemption thereof claimed by the assessee. Thereafter, the AO treated the same as cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and added the entire LTCG to the income of the assessee and also the commission expenses as unexplained income. On first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee against his claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act and also confirmed the additions on account of commission expenses made by the AO under section 69 of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. I have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. At the time of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had purchased 6,000 numbers of shares of M/s. JIL on 12.10.2011 at a total consideration of ₹ 60,000/- from M/s. Uttam Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (copy of the purchase bill, money receipt, share transfer advice and share certificate are available in the paper book at pages 9 to 13). Therea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the eyes of law. In this connection, he placed reliance on the following decisions: i) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC); ii) CIT (Central) Calcutta vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349) iii) Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE - [2015J 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) (iv) P.S. Abdul Majeed vs. Agricultural Income-Tax and Sales Tax Officer And Others 209 ITR 821 (Ker.) (v) CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises 210 ITR 103 (Cal) (vi) Asst. CIT vs Ajnara India Ltd (2011) 49 DTR 273 (Del-Trib) (vii) Calcutta High Court in S.K.Bothra Sons (HUF) vs ITO (2011) 62 DTR (Cal)234 (viii) Delhi High Court in CIT vs Rajesh Kumar (2008) 306 ITR 27 (ix) CIT vs. Carbo Industries Holdings Ltd. 244 ITR 422 (Cal) (x) CIT vs. Emerald Commercial Ltd. 250 ITR 539 (Cal) (xi) Manish Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, order dated 18.08.2017; ITANo. 1236-1237/K/17 (xii) Vasudha Jain vs. ITO, ITA No. 10181K/2018, order dated 15.02.2019 (xiii) Prakasho Devi Saria vs. ITO, ITA No. 23601K/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Tribunal in the case of Omprakash Mundhra Ors Vs. ITO in ITA No. 2235/Kol/2018 (supra) have decided that the scrips of M/s. JIL are not bogus and held that the LTCG claim of the assessee needs to be allowed. In the said order, the Tribunal has held as under: 3. I find in this lead case ITA No.2235/Kol/2018 that the assessee had declared his LTCG of ₹6,19,319/- derived from transfer of shares held in Jackson Investments Ltd. Learned Departmental Representative invites my attention to a voluminous exercise undertaken by the Assessing Officer involving a long drawn process of stock market prices rigging in collusion with in the various entity operators. He takes me to assessment order indicating the assessee to have allegedly invested her money in Jackson Investments Ltd. not having any sound financial position or business activity so as to justify the LTCG in issue. Case law Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR (SC) is quoted in support to plead that both the lower authorities have made it clear in their respective order(s) about the assessee having acted in collus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 1 LTCG companies during the period when the shares were made to rise which implies that they had contributed to such price rise. viii. Names of most of the LTCG companies are changed during the period of the scam. ix. Most of the companies split the face value of shares [this is probably done to avoid the eyes of market analysts]. x. The volume of trade jumps manifold immediately when the market prices of shares reach at optimum level so as to result in LTCG assured to the beneficiaries. This maximum is reached around the time when the initial allottees have held the shares for one year or little more and thus, their gain on sale of such shares would be eligible for exemption from Income Tax. xi. An analysis of share buyers of some of LTCG companies was done to see if there were common persons/entities involved in buying the bogus inflated shares. It was noted that there were many common buyers [which were paper companies]. xii. The prices of the shares fall very sharply after the shares of LTCG beneficiaries have been off loaded through the pre-arranged transactions on the Stock Exchange floor/p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing evidence before the Assessing Officer in support of his contentions:- a) Copies of bills, evidencing purchase of shares b) Copies of contract notes of sale of shares c) Bank statement copies d) Copy of Ledger A/c of broker e) Demat Statement etc. The Assessing Officer has just relied on general observations. No evidence was controverted by the Assessing Officer. 11. The Kolkata Bench of the ITAT in a number of decisions have, on similar facts and circumstances of the case, decided the issue in favour of the assessee. We list some of these decisions:- Shri Gautam Kumar Pincha vs. ITO, ITA No. 569/Kol/2017, dt. 15/11/2017 ITO vs. Shri Shaleen khemani, ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014, dt. 18/10/2017 Mahendra Kumar Baid vs. ACIT, Circle-35; ITA No. 1237/Kol/2017; order dt. 18/08/2017 Kiran Kothari HUF vs. ITO, ITA No. 443/kol/2017, order dt. 15/11/2017 The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court on similar facts, had in the following cases, upheld the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is income exempt from income tax, by way of cheque through Banking channels. This allegation that cash had changed hands, has to be proved with evidence, by the revenue. Evidence gathered by the Director Investigation s office by way of statements recorded etc. has to also be brought on record in each case, when such a statement, evidence etc. is relied upon by the revenue to make any additions. Opportunity of cross examination has to be provided to the assessee, if the AO relies on any statements or third party as evidence to make an addition. If any material or evidence is sought to be relied upon by the AO, he has to confront the assessee with such material. The claim of the assessee cannot be rejected based on mere conjectures unverified by evidence under the pretentious garb of preponderance of human probabilities and theory of human behavior by the department. 14. It is well settled that evidence collected from third parties cannot be used against an assessee unless this evidence is put before him and he is given an opportunity to controvert the evidence. In this case, the AO relies only on a report as the basis for the addition. The evidence based on whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose of generating bogus long term capital gains. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the persons investigated, including entry operators or stock brokers, have named that the assessee was in collusion with them. In absence of such finding how is it possible to link their wrong doings with the assessee. In fact the investigation wing is a separate department which has not been assigned assessment work and has been delegated the work of only making investigation. The Act has vested widest powers on this wing. It is the duty of the investigation wing to conduct proper and detailed inquiry in any matter where there is allegation of tax evasion and after making proper inquiry and collecting proper evidences the matter should be sent to the assessment wing to assess the income as per law. We find no such action executed by investigation wing against the assessee. In absence of any finding specifically against the assessee in the investigation wing report, the assessee cannot be held to be guilty or linked to the wrong acts of the persons investigated. In this case, in our view, the Assessing Officer at best could have considered the investigation report as a starting point o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant earning a considerable sum as against which it showed a net loss of about ₹ 45,000. The Incometax Officer indicated the probable source or sources from which the appellant could have earned a large amount in the sum of ₹ 2,91,000 but the conclusion which he arrived at in regard to the appellant having earned this large amount during the year and which according to him represented the secreted profits of the appellant in its business was the result of pure conjectures and surmises on his part and had no foundation in fact and was not proved against the appellant on the record of the proceedings. If the conclusion of the Income-tax Officer was thus either perverse or vitiated by suspicions, conjectures or surmises, the finding of the Tribunal was equally perverse or vitiated if the Tribunal took count of all these probabilities and without any rhyme or reason and merely by a rule of thumb, as it were, came to the conclusion that the possession of 150 high denomination notes of ₹ 1,000 each was satisfactorily explained by the appellant but not that of the balance of 141 high denomination notes of ₹ 1,000 each . The observations of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad been accounted for in their books of accounts, and that excise duty had been paid. The Court held that such a request could not be turned down, as the denial of the right to cross-examine, would amount to a denial of the right to be heard i.e. audi alteram partem. 28. The meaning of providing a reasonable opportunity to show cause against an action proposed to be taken by the government, is that the government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges, on the basis of which an inquiry is held. The government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so only when he is told what the charges against him are. He can therefore, do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that, the government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against him. Unless the said statements are provided to the government servant, he will not be able to conduct an effective and useful cross-examination. 29. In Rajiv Arora v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2009 SC 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the Assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the Appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the Appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the Appellant wanted from them. 6. As mentioned above, the Appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acity of the transactions, the Tribunal has come to its conclusion on analysis of relevant materials. That being the position, Tribunal having analyzed the set of facts in coming to its finding, we do not think there is any scope of interference with the order of the Tribunal in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. The appeal and the stay petition, accordingly, shall stand dismissed. b) The JAIPUR ITAT in the case of VIVEK AGARWAL [ITA No. 292/JP/2017] order dated 06.04.2018 held as under vide Page 9 Para 3: We hold that the addition made by the AO is merely based on suspicion and surmises without any cogent material to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee in support of the claim. Further, the AO has also failed to establish that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in the shape of long term capital gain. Hence we delete the addition made by the AO on this account. c) The Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PREM PAL GANDHI [ITA-95- 2017 (O M)] dated 18.01.2018 at vide Page 3 Para 4 he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. These evidences were neither found by the AO nor by the ld. CIT (A) to be false or fictitious or bogus. The facts of the case and the evidence in support of the evidence clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were genuine and the authorities below was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee that income from LTCG is exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. Further in Page 15 Para 8.5 of the judgment, it held: We note that the ld. AR cited plethora of the case laws to bolster his claim which are not being repeated again since it has already been incorporated in the submissions of the ld. AR (supra) and have been duly considered by us to arrive at our conclusion. The ld. DR could not bring to our notice any case laws to support the impugned decision of the ld. CIT (A)/AO. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the ld. CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the addition of sale proceeds of the shares as undiscl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O to delete the addition. f) The BENCH A OF KOLKATA ITAT in the case of SHALEEN KHEMANI [ITA No. 1945/Kol/2014] order dated 18.10.2017 held as under vide Page 24 Para 9.3: We therefore hold that there is absolutely no adverse material to implicate the assessee to the entire gamut of unwarranted allegations leveled by the ld AO against the assessee, which in our considered opinion, has no legs to stand in the eyes of law. We find that the ld DR could not controvert the arguments of the ld AR with contrary material evidences on record and merely relied on the orders of the ld AO. We find that the allegation that the assessee and / or Brokers getting involved in price rigging of SOICL shares fails. It is also a matter of record that the assessee furnished all evidences in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statements and the bank accounts to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares resulting in LTCG. These evidences were neither found by the ld AO to be false or fabricated. The facts of the case and the evidences in support of the assessee s case clearly support the claim of the assessee that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.3.2002. The transactions of sale and purchase were as per the valuation prevalent in the Stocks Exchange. Such finding of fact has been recorded on the basis of evidence produced on record. The Tribunal has affirmed such finding. Such finding of fact is sought to be disputed in the present appeal. We do not find that the finding of fact recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax in appeal, gives give rise to any question(s) of law as sought to be raised in the present appeal. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. i) The Hon ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A. No. 22/Kol/2009 dated 29.04.2009 at para 2 held as follows: The tribunal found that the chain of transaction entered into by the assessee have been proved, accounted for, documented and supported by evidence. The assessee produced before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) the contract notes, details of his Demat account and, also, produced documents showing that all payments were received by the assessee through bank. j) The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Teju Rohitkumar Kapadia order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee had purchased 6,000 numbers of shares of M/s. JIL on 12.10.2011 at a total consideration of ₹ 60,000/- from M/s. Uttam Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (copy of the purchase bill, money receipt, share transfer advice and share certificate are available in the paper book at pages 9 to 13. Thereafter, in the relevant year the assessee sold 1500 shares @ ₹ 311/- on 23.06.2014, 2000 shares @ ₹ 309/- on 03.07.2014 and 2500 shares @ ₹ 312/- through M/s. Guiness Securities Ltd. which is a registered broker at the BSE and claimed LTCG of ₹ 17,91,918/-. Contract notes in connection with sale of shares along with bank statement reflecting the receipt of sale consideration and demat statement were produced before the lower authorities and are available in the paper book page nos. 14 to 22. I note that the A.O. has nowhere in the assessment order referred to any material which can prove the complicity of assessee either in the price rigging or in the alleged accommodation entry operation. Nothing on record/assessment order could show that assessee was connected with M/s. Jackson Investments Ltd. or their promoters, directors and any other person who exercises any co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... distinguished by Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the following cases: a. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Ko/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol, ITAT)] b. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) 2. Ritu Sanjay Mantry vs. ITO - ITA No.2003/Mum/2017, Order dt. 9th February, 2018 - ITAT Mumbai In this case is that was reopened by the AO on the basis of information received from office of DGIT (C IB), New Delhi that the assessee had taken accommodation entry from M/s. Magasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. (a company in the Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. group share scam case) of ₹ 10,32,289/-. Subsequently the assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act after making an addition of ₹ 10,39,289/- on account of bogus share transactions and ₹ 20,786/- being commission paid to the broker for arranging accommodation entries in the form of share transactions. The AO had given a finding that the assessee had taken entries from Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. involved in the shares scam case for ₹ 10,39,289/- for bogus speculation profit during the financial year 2007 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the AO since the purchase was made in cash, the same was not verifiable. Further, the A.O. found that said transaction was not through the stock exchange. The shares were in a nondescript company, with no financial and/or physical assets of value or reported earnings. The shares, purchased at an average rate of ₹ 21.70 per share in May 2004, went up to as much as from ₹ 465 to ₹ 489 in July, 2005, i.e., just over years' time. Each of these incidents matched with that which could be expected in a case of a transaction in a penny stock, the modus operandi of the transactions in which was also listed by the AO. Accordingly, relying on the decisions by the apex court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 Taxman 89 (SC); Durga Prasad More v. CIT [1971] 182 ITR 540 (SC) and MC. Dowell Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148/22 Taxman 11 (SC), besides by the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Som Nath Maini [2006] 7 SOT 202 (Chd.), he assessed the impugned credit of ₹ 12.15 lacs as unexplained income u/s. 68 of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed the addition observing that the purchase of shares was off market purchase not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T)] c. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) Reference is also made to the recent judgment dated 1st July, 2019 rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Aparna Misra vs. ITO [ITA No.161/KoIl2019] wherein the Tribunal had relied upon the Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court judgments, as mentioned hereinabove. 5. M. K. Rajeshwari vs. ITO [2018] 99 taxmann.com 339 The Bangalore Tribunal noted the acts in this case as the assessee earned long-term capital gain on sale of shares of MARL and claimed exemption on it under section 10(38). The Assessing Officer relying upon the report of the investigation wing, SEBI report and findings/observations of the SIT, concluded that exemption under section 10(38) claimed by the assessee was not acceptable and the act of the assessee in purchasing the penny stock shares and sale of fee within the ambit of adventure in the nature of trade. Consequently, amount in question was liable to be taxed under the head 'business income'. The Tribunal confirmed the addition by observing that the department had brought sufficient material on record to demonstrate that unaccounted mone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... beyond all doubts, purchases and as well as sale of shares. Further this judgment has been considered and distinguished by this Tribunal and other Benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases while allowing similar issue in favour of the Assessee: a. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Kamal Singh Kundalia vs. ITO [ITA No.2359/Kol/2017, Order dt. 08.05.2019 (Kol ITAT)] c. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) 8. Coming to the case of Chandan Gupta Vs. CIT (2015) 54 taxmann.com 10 (P H ) The Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court had confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer on the basis of finding of fact by the Tribunal that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares. The relevant observation is as under: ..... On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to prove the genuineness of the transaction of sale and purchase of shares. Once the transaction of purchase and sale was found to be bogus then ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i vs. ITO [Order dt. 06.04.2018] Aravind Kumar, Chennai vs. ITO [Order dt. 08.11.2018] Vikram Dughar, Chennai vs. ITO [Order dt. 13.11.2018] Sadhana, Bangalore vs. ITO [Order dt. 26.05.2017] Arun Kumar Bhaiya, New Delhi vs. ITO [Order dt. 30.08.2018] Natti Singh HUF, Jaipur vs. ACIT [Order dt. 31.10.2018] Vinod J. Sharma, Thane [Order dt. 28.10.2015] All the matters were set aside to the file of the AO for fresh consideration and/or to confront the Assessee with the adverse materials used against him. The matters in each of the said cases were set aside in the specific facts and circumstances of each of the cases were set aside in the specific facts and circumstances of each of the cases wherein all facts were not available on record and/or where in the words of the D/R the AO has botched up enquiry . However, in the case in hand there is no occasion for setting aside the matter in as much as the assessee had furnished all relevant documents, materials and/or evidence to support its transactions of purchase and as well as sale of shares and the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the case of Kaushalya Agarwal Vs. ITO (ITA No. 194/Kol/2018, order dated 03.06.2019 (ITAT, Kol). More particularly, the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain V. PCIUT, order dated 10.04.2017 (Bom HC) had been considered and distinguished by this Tribunal and other benches of the Tribunal, inter-alia, in the following cases: a. Satyanarayan Saria vs. ITO [ITA No.1224/Kol/2016, Order dt. 28.06.2019 (Kol ITAT)] b. Kaushalya Agarwal vs. ITO [ITA No.194/Kol/2018, Order dt. 03.06.2019 (Kol, ITAT)] c. Meenu Goel vs. ITO [2018] 94 taxmann.com 158 (Del-Trib) 12. Coming to the cases given below: ACIT vs. Madhuri Sunil Kotecha [ITAT, Pune, Order dt. 28.03.2018] Charu Agarwal, Meerut vs. ITO [ITAT, Delhi, Order dt. 10.09.2018] Dayaram Khandelwal vs. PCIT [MP High Court, Order dt. 01.03.2018] Sourabh Khandelwal vs. PCIT [MP High Court, Order dt. 01.03.2018] It is noted that in all of these cases relates to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... F) v. ITO in ITA No.1217/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. ix. Virendara Barmecha v. ITO in ITA No.1201/KoI/2018, Order dated 05.10.2018. x. Taruna Devi Barmecha v. ITO in ITA No.1199/KoI/2018, Order dt. 05.10.2018. xi. Premlata Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA No.874/KoI/2018, Order dt. 05.10.2018. xii. Sunil Kumar Ladha vs. ITO in ITA No.851/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. xiii. Balram Gupta vs. ITO in ITA No.817/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. xiv. Alka Changoiwala vs. ITO in ITA No.634/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. xv. Santosh Choraria vs. ITO in ITA NO.521/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. xvi. Sonal Bajaj vs. ITO in ITA No.239/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. xvii. Sudha Khandelwal v. ITO in ITA No.86/KoI/2018, Order dt. 05.10.2018. xviii. Bina Agarwal vs. ITO in ITA NO.1403/KoI/2018, Order dt.05.1 0.2018. xix. Harish Jain vs. ITO in ITA No. 1404/Ko1/2018, Order dt.05.10.2018. Thus, it is noted that aforesaid decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, Hon ble Bombay High Court and Tribunal are d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
