TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 that the transactions with Mridul Securities are admitted by the Petitioners, we do not find any case for interfering in the writ proceedings. This Court finds that the Petitioners have not brought on record anything to suggest that the reassessment proceedings are being undertaken in an arbitrary manner. With respect to the contention raised on the issue of limitation and the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioners that the notice has been issued beyond limitation has already been rejected by this Court in Touchstone case [ 2022 (9) TMI 892 - DELHI HIGH COURT] The Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chabildas and Anr. [ 2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT] has held that as the Act of 1961 provides an able machinery for assessment/reassessment of tax, the Assessee is not permitted to abandon with the machinery and invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is of the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ucted by the inv Wing, Rohtak on Tradenext Securities Ltd (Lifeline Securities Ltd) and Kundu Group of Rohtak. It was found that family members of Kundu group had taken accommodation entries in form of Exempt LTCG u/s 10(38) of the IT Act, 1961. 2. It was found that the members of Kundu group/beneficiaries had in their possession contract notes for purchase of shares which dated back to F.Y. 2009- 10 but on further investigation no such transaction was traced on market/stock exchange. 3. Authorized signatory of Tradenext Securities Ltd had accepted on oath that the contract notes issued by them were 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 admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it had purchased 32000 shares of TVS Motors from Mridul Securities and the transaction amount of Rs.94,81,600. It was further stated that the said shares were thereafter transferred to a separate demat account maintained with Religare Securities Ltd. ( Religare Securities ) and sold. It was stated therein that the Assessee has claimed Short Term Capital Gain ( STCG ) on the sale of shares. The Assessee enclosed its return of income (ROI) with the said reply to substantiate its plea of STCG. 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. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows: (iii) The information is not vague since the same is specific information mentioning the F.Y. 2016-17 which pertain to the period under consideration. Further it is worthwhile to mention here that in this case assessee received 32000 shares of TVS Motor Company Ltd from one of the dummy Demat account worth Rs.94,81,600/-. The case requires deep scrutiny on this alert. xxx xxx xxx 7. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case it is a fit case for issue of no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he present writ cannot be maintained and the Assessee must establish the genuineness of the transactions in the re-assessment proceedings. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. 10. The Petitioner contends that it has duly purchased the said 32,000 shares from Mridul Securities but there are no relevant or contemporaneous documents evidencing the said purchase, i.e. bank statement etc., placed on record in this petition. As regards the disclosure, if any, of the purchase of the shares, in its earlier ROI, it was clarified by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the shares were bought in the same financial year, it is only the transaction 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. 11. The 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. 12. It would be relevant to menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
