The tax authorities must provide concrete evidence for disallowing claims based on alleged non-genuine transactions; mere assumptions do not suffice.

ORDER

PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals-30, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 21.09.2024 for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2. Brief facts of the case are, the case of the assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny and during the assessment proceedings, the assessee’s claim of earning capital gain amounting to Rs.57,11,085/- & Rs.46,95,755/- from sale of shares of M/s Yamini Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Goenka Business & Finance Ltd. totaling Rs.1,04,06,840/- were examined. The Assessing Officer has found the claims to be not genuine and considered these scrip to be penny stock and disallowed the claim making addition u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which was sustained by Ld. CIT(A).

3. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT (A), assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) under section 250 of the Act is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed u/s 147 is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the La. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the approval u/s 151 is illegal, bad in law and without application of mind and consequently the assessment order passed requires to be quashed.

4 That On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessment order being passed in violation of the principle of natural justice by not providing opportunity for cross examination of persons, whose statements have been relied upon by the AO, in spite of specific request made by the appellant in assessment proceedings as well as before CIT(A) and without giving adequate time and opportunity to the assessee to represent its case.

5 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Ld. CIT (A) 30, New Delhi has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the assessment of the appellant at income of Rs.1,37,65,870/- as against the income of (Rs.33,59,030/-) declared by the appellant.

6 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the addition of Rs.l,04,06,840/- 147 on account of L TCG on sale of shares without appreciating the facts of the case.

7 That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, enhancing the income by of Rs.5,20,342/- on account of alleged notional commission @ 5% paid for arranging the accommodation entries.

8 That the provisions of sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act are not at all applicable.

9. That the impugned appeal order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.

4. With regard to two scrip involved i.e. M/s Yamini Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Goenka Business & Finance Ltd., the Ld. AR has relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Rachna Gupta vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.5418/Del/2018 & 2531/Del/2022 for Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively whereby vide order dated 20.12.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench, in which present Bench is also in quorum, has also taken in consideration scrip, M/s Yamini Investment Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Goenka Business & Finance Ltd. in AY 2016-17 and benefited the assessee holding that transactions of the assessee are not tainted. The Ld. AR has pointed out that Rachna Gupta is in fact related to the assessee Udita Gupta and heavily relied on the decision of the coordinate Bench.

5. On the other hand