TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents. The assessee has not filed a single piece of evidence which can be verified independently and from independent source. There is no dematerialization of the shares and even the return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed only on 23.03.2014 after the alleged transaction of sale of shares. Therefore, the said return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 and showing the shares in the balance sheet will not help the case of the assessee as the said return was filed belatedly only after the alleged transaction of sale. Hence assessee has not produced any tangible material which can be verified independently and free from any manipulation, the same will not constitute a reasonable and bonafide explanation in terms of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. ₹ 2,72,550/-: The ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the penalty of ₹ 2,72,550/- u/s 271(1)(c) imposed by the AO. The penalty so imposed by the ld. AO and confirmed by the CIT (A) is totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence the additions may kindly be deleted in full. 3. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. 2. The assessee is a partner of M/s. Parshwanath Associates, Kota and received income as profit share and interest from the partnership firm. She is also having income from salary, capital gain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ground that it was not feasible for the assessee to produce all the supporting evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction. The ld. A/R has submitted that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable in law when the assessee produced all the relevant particulars as well as documentary evidence in support of the claim of long term capital gain arising from purchase and sale of shares. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). The ld. A/R has thus contended that merely because the claim of long term capital gain was disallowed by the AO and consequently the addition was made does not lead to the conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 9,76,750/- from sale of shares of Turbo Tech Engg. Ltd. and claimed the same exempt under section 10(38) of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that the claim of long term capital gain shown by the assessee is from penny stock companies and the assessee was asked to furnish the details and evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The assessee then filed a revised computation in which the said income offered to tax. The AO accordingly held the transactions of long term capital gain in respect of purchase and sale of 5000 shares of M/s. Turbo Tech Engg. Limited as bogus transactions in view of the report of the Investigation Wing, Kolkata. Thus there is no dispute that in the assessment proceedin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
