9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 222X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er had made very many submissions before this Court. However, after some arguments, he had restricted his submissions to the extent as follows: (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire proceedings were initiated against the petitioner only based on the statement of one Naresh Jain. However, the said statement of Naresh Jain and the other relevant documents, which were relied upon by the respondents while passing the impugned order, have not been provided to the petitioner. Hence, he requests this Court to direct the respondent to provide the said statement and documents to the petitioner. (ii) Further, he would submit that the respondent had not provided any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the information received inside portal that Mrs.Naresh Sangeetha had transacted in penny stock by name "M/s.Monotype India Pvt. Ltd." to the tune of Rs.38,21,826/-. 6 to 13. ...................... 14. I submit that therefore, the question of AO depending up the oral statement of Mr.Naresh Jain does not arise. We had corroborated all his statements with proper document, evidence, materials and other such proofs." 7. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 8. In the present case, at paragraph No.2.3.16 of the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2023, it has been stated as follows: "2.3.16. A show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ype India Ltd increased many folds as a result of artificial jacking by syndicate controlled by Sh. Naresh Jain and assessee is also a beneficiary of it. Direct connection to the kingpin i.e., Sh. Naresh Jain is not necessary but what is important is that assessee is a clear cut beneficiary by receiving fictitious benefits from penny stock M/s.Monotype India Limited. Mere paying of LTCG does not exonerate assessee from these sham transactions in shares of this penny stock." 9. On perusing the above portion, it appears that a request was made by the petitioner for cross-examining Naresh Jain, since the entire proceedings were initiated by relying upon the various documents, which were obtained from various sources based on the statement of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement of Naresh Jain. Hence, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get a copy of those documents, which were obtained from various sources based on the statement of Naresh Jain, since furnishing the said documents will enable the petitioner to file her detailed reply. 13. In the present case, the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondent had fairly submitted that though the respondent had relied upon very many documents to substantiate the case against the petitioner, some of the documents were not provided to the petitioner and the same will be provided at the earliest. Hence, after receipt of the said documents, the petitioner shall file her detailed reply. If no reply is filed, there is no doubt that it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
