आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shyam Metalics And Engery Ltd…...………..............................……….……Appellant

83, Trinity Tower, 7^th Floor, Topsia, Kol-700046, [PAN: AAHCS5842A]

vs.

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata…………………………...……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by:

Shri Akkal Dudhewala, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Praveen Kishore, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : July 23, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 15, 2025 ORDER Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 08.04.2025 of the Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 22, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”].

2. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is against the ld. CIT(A) order confirming the disallowance of bogus loss of Rs.1,89,53,757/- incurred by the assessee upon sale of listed shares of M/s Unno Industries Limited (‘UIL’).

3. The facts in brief are that the assessee had sold shares of UIL at a loss of Rs.1,89,53,757/-. According to the ld. AO, though the assessee had furnished contract notes, bank statements and other documents in support of sale of shares of UIL but as per the Investigation Wing database, the share of UIL was penny stock which was being used by entry operators to provide bogus accommodation entries in the guise of capital gains or losses. The ld. AO also referred to a report published by the Directorate of Income tax Mumbai, which listed UIL as a penny stock scrip to arrange bogus LTCG/ loss. The ld. AO therefore held that the loss of Rs.1,89,53,757/- incurred on shares of UIL was not genuine and therefore added the same by way of cash credit u/s 68 of the Act.

4. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) was pleased to confirm the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.

5. The ld. AR submitted that the loss quantified by the ld. AO was factually incorrect. The ld. AR invited our attention to the statement giving the details of total short term capital loss of Rs.1,89,53,757/- incurred during the year along with the stock ledger and supporting sample contract notes, which was placed at Pages31 to 80 of the Paperbook. He pointed out that the impugned loss figure was a summation of loss incurred on sale of several listed shares and that the loss incurred in shares of UIL was only Rs.73,26,040/- and not Rs.1,89,53,757/-. According to the ld. AR, this fact showed that the ld. AO had not applied his mind to the facts of the case and had rather disallowed the impugned sum in a mechanical fashion. He contended that neither the purported report of the Investigation Wing, statement of broker(s) or statement of entry operator(s) etc. was provided to the assessee nor was the assessee provided with a fair opportunity to rebut the same. The ld AR argued that the impugned disallowance was made in gross violation of principles of natural justice and submitted that the impugned issue ought to be set aside. Per contra, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the lower authorities.

6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. From the facts placed before us, it is observed that the assessee had purchased and sold 5,45,000 shares of UIL during the year which yielded short term capital loss of Rs.73,26,040/-. Apart from the shares of UIL, the assessee have transacted in other listed shares as well in which it incurred short term capital loss of Rs.1,16,27,717/-, with aggregate quantum of gross short term capital loss coming to Rs.1,89,53,757/- [Rs.1,16,27,717 (+) Rs.73,26,040]. The details thereof are placed at Pages 30 to