Vertool Consultancy LLP Vs DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad)
ITAT Ahmedabad held that addition towards accommodation entries of bogus LTCG cannot be sustained in absence of any iota of tangible perceptible evidence. Accordingly, appeal allowed and addition set aside.
Facts- Assessee has preferred the present appeal mainly contesting that CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer assuming jurisdiction u/s. 147 on the basis of borrowed satisfaction. The reassessment proceedings were triggered on the basis of material alleged to have been seized during the course of search carried out u/s. 132 in the case of Jignesh Shah and Sanjay Shah and therefore, the AO ought to have initiated the proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. It is also contested that confirming the addition of Rs.2,02,15,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act in utter disregard to the fact that the appellant was not found by the AO in physical possession of money to the extent of Rs.2,02,15,000/-.
Conclusion- Held that the Assessing Officer held that the evidences demonstrate that accommodation entry providers have resorted to synchronized trading in shares of various listed companies and ensured to provide accommodation entry of bogus LTCG against cash. Against these allegations, there was no evidence as to what are the companies which were involved in synchronized trading in shares, what are the stocks, date of operation or manipulation of stocks, date of purchase & date of sale of stocks. In the absence of any iota of tangible, perceptible evidence, the lower authorities went on creating a facade to make an addition which cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
