TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /scrip of VAS Infrastructure Ltd., the assessee has given all the details to the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings, including the details of brokers, details of transactions, credit notes, D-mat account, transaction details which were not taken into account either by the AO or by the CIT(A). The summons issued to entry provider as per the AO, has nothing to do with the assessee and the said statement was not at all verified by the AO as well as the assessee was not given any opportunity of confronting this statement. The assessee has rightly claimed the said trading as business income and, therefore, the decision of Hon ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj [ 2022 (6) TMI 670 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] will not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been treated as stock in trade and business income has been offered to tax by the appellant. 4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer relying on the decision in the case of Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Cal) where assesse had earned LTCG as sale of shares as against business income declared on trading of shares. 3. The assessee filed return of income for AY 2012-13 on 21.07.2012 declaring total income of Rs. 2,36,390/-. After receiving the information, it was observed that VAS Infrastructure Ltd. is a penny stock which has been used to provide accommodation entry of bogus Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG)/loss to the beneficiaries. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has not claimed Short Term Capital Gain or Long Term Capital Gain in respect of the sale of scrip i.e. VAS Infrastructure Ltd. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has given all the details related to the purchase of the said scrip and further submitted that the assessee has purchased the sale stock of 37,788 equity shares through M/s. Rajvi Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. and sold the said scrip at Rs. 39,76,803/-, which resulted the net profit of Rs. 9,204/- and the same was duly offered to tax by the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that share difference account in the scrip VAS Infrastructure Ltd. determining the profit at Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her by the Assessing Officer or by the CIT(A). The summons issued to Shri Ramesh Ajwani, who is an entry provider as per the Assessing Officer, has nothing to do with the assessee and the said statement was not at all verified by the Assessing Officer as well as the assessee was not given any opportunity of confronting this statement. The assessee has rightly claimed the said trading as business income and, therefore, the decision of Hon ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj will not be applicable in the present case. The sale proceeds of shares were properly explained by the assessee through the documentary evidence which was filed before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). Thus, the Assessing Officer as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
