TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with respect to sale of shares which is reported in the ROI. Thus, it is only the sale of shares which is documented by the Assessee in its ROI. SCN and impugned order states that the entity Mridul Securities is involved in providing accommodation entries and the Assessee is the beneficiary of the specified alleged transaction, in respect whereof, information has been received by the AO and the said transaction is not disputed by the Petitioner. In light of the information which forms the basis of the initiation of the inquiry and in view of the fact the petitioner has not placed on record documents to establish genuineness of the transactions with Mridul Securities, we do not find any case for interfering in the writ proceedings. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for Revenue along with Ms. Zehra Khan, Junior Standing Counsel for Revenue and Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate. J U D G M E N T MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL): 1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order passed under Section 148A(d) ( impugned order ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ) and the notice ( impugned notice ) issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 21st July, 2022, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 54(1), Delhi for the Assessment Year ( AY ) 2015-16. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that the Petitioner Assessee was served Show Cause Notice ( SCN ) dated 23rd May, 2022 under Section 148A(b) of the Act by the Assessing Officer ( AO ) wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bogus and fabricated. He has further stated that these contract notes were not issued by his company. 4. It was found that shares were purchased on exchange in the name of one Sh. Rakesh Sharma and were subsequently transferred off-market to Tradenext Securities Ltd without any consideration and this was ultimately transferred to the beneficiaries. Sh. Rakesh Sharma has stated that his account was mis-used and he had lodged FIR in regard to the same. Sh. Rakesh Sharma has also stated that he has never opened any Demat Account. 5. Some of the beneficiaries have admitted that they had no knowledge of Share trading and they had arranged exempt LTCG for 2-3% commission. 6. Modus-Operandi(MO)- Cash will be received from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 5604000 from one of the dummy demat a/c Mridul Securities P Ltd. 3. The Assessee filed its reply dated 24th June, 2022 to the aforesaid SCN objecting to the reassessment proceedings, mainly in two grounds. The Assessee stated that the reassessment proceedings are barred by limitation and the AO has not provided any information and material related to initiation of the reassessment proceedings. The Assessee did not dispute specific transaction in shares of Aurobindo Pharma through Mridul Securities as stated in the SCN in its reply. 4. After perusing the reply filed by the Assessee, the AO held that it is a fit case of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that AO failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ma by the Petitioner is an accommodation entry. He states that the Petitioner has not filed any documents on record along with its reply which establishes the genuineness of the purchase of these shares. He states that in light of the facts set out in the SCN and the impugned order since the genuineness of the transaction is disputed, the present writ cannot be maintained and the Assessee must establish the genuineness of the transactions in the re-assessment proceedings. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 9. The Petitioner has not brought on record any relevant or contemporaneous documents evidencing the said purchase, i.e. bank statement etc., placed on record in this petition. As regards th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced reliance on the order dated 2nd September, 2022 passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 12683/2022 in the case of Anu Gupta v. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 54 (1). The said case has no application to the facts of the case in hand, as in the said case, the Petitioner s response to the SCN issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act has not been considered by the AO while passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act. However, in the present case, the response of the Petitioner has been considered before passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act by the AO. There is another curious fact that Anu Gupta, who is related to the present petitioner has also transacted for the identical shares in the same AY for the same acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
