9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 220X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals were heard together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. At the first instance we will deal with the appeal in ITA No. 1417/Chd/2019. 4. The Registry has pointed out that the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 44 days. The assessee moved an application to condone the delay stating therein as under: "Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal Dear Sir, The appellant begs to submit as under: 1. That I had filed an appeal before CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana for the assessment year 2015-16 which was decided by the CIT(A) vide order dated 01/06/2019. 2. That the order of the CIT(A) was served by speed post on our gatekeeper Rajinder Kum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling the appeal may please be condoned. " 5. During the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the contents of the aforesaid application and the Affidavit of the assessee. It was also stated that the delay in filing the appeal was not malafide and it was beyond the control of the assessee, since the delay occurred due to the mistake of the gate keeper to whom the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was delivered, however he could not hand over the same to the assessee timely. He requested to condone the delay. 6. In his rival submissions the Ld. DR although opposed the condonation of delay but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee. 7. We have considered the submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted and sold 20,000 shares for a total sale consideration of Rs. 61,76,000/- and earned profit of Rs. 59,15,108/- which was claimed to be exempt being Long Term Capital Gain(LTCG). The A.O. also observed that the investigation revealed that the company i.e. M/s Jackson Investments Limited had done very marginal operation during the period. It was further observed that there was a common pattern in trading of all the 84 scripts including the script of M/s Jackson Investments Limited which were investigated by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Kolkata. The A.O. asked information under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') from M/s Jackson Investments Limited and Bombay Stock Exchange ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of how such strategic decisions were made by quoting general friends and business associates, whose whereabouts were not known to the assessee. 9.1 The submissions of the assessee before the A.O. was that he had done this transaction through stock exchanges and banking channels and that he had paid Security Transaction Tax / SEBI Tax / Stamp Duty which was applicable for trading of shares. 9.2 The A.O. however did not find merits in the submissions of the assessee and made the addition of Rs. 59,15,108/- under section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: * Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) * Durga Prasad More Vs. CIT (SC) * Mcdowell Vs. CTO (SC) * CIT Vs. P. Mohankala dt. 15/05/2007) (SC) * Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is beyond any doubt that transaction was just a cover-up to bring its own unaccounted money into its books of account. It is beyond doubt that the assessee has taken entries from M/s Jackson Investment Ltd. which has been found to be involved in the activities of providing bogus long term capital gain to beneficiaries as statedin above paragraph the financial statement of M/s Jackson Investment Ltd. also clearly shows that the assessee has laundered its unaccounted money through the above concern. As discussed in detail in above paragraph it is beyond doubt that the assessee has taken accommodation entry to launder its unaccounted money through M/s Jackson Investment Ltd. Therefore the addition under section 68 by the assessing officer h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee in Form No. 35 which is placed on record. In the said grounds mentioned in Form No. 35 the assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 59,15,108/- made by the A.O. while the Ld. CIT(A) dealt with the addition of Rs. 1,62,80,162/- which was not related to the assessee. In the present case the main grievance of the assessee is that the evidences used by the Ld. CIT(A) while sustaining the addition were not confronted to the assessee and that the submissions of the assessee were not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). The principles of natural justice demand that the material used against the person must be confronted before taking the decision against the said person. We therefore keeping in view the peculiar facts of this case deem it appropr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
