These assessees have filed their instant appeals involving different assessment year(s) against the respective Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) separate order(s) affirming the Assessing Officer(s) identical action treating varying sums of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) / Long/Short Term Capital Loss (LTCL); as the case may be as involving unexplained cash credits u/s 68, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the.

2. I have heard these appeal(s) together; date-wise in view of the fact that the sole identical issue raised in the instant entire batch is that of genuineness of assessees LTCG/LTCL, as the case may be, derived from sale of shares held in various scrips. It is in this identical backdrop that I am treating ITA No.2623Kol/2018 in case of Swati Bajaj vs. ITO Wd-36(2), Kolkata for assessment year 2014-15 as the lead case. Page 28

3. Both the learned representative(s) take me to CIT(A)s detailed discussion whilst treating the impugned STCL pre-arranged bogus loss in the instant lead case vide the following lower appellate discussion:- 06. FINDINGS & DECISION:

1. I have carefully considered in making an addition of Rs.28,23,500/- as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. After an exhaustive discussion and elaborating the factual and legal matrix, has held that the claim of Long Term Capital Gain u/s. 10(38) was to be denied to the assessee-individual, and was to be assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 has placed on record the entire gamut of findings, and there is, in my considered view no further requirement for elaboration from this forum. In my view of the facts there are elaborate and direct evidence to clearly indicate that the entire transactions undertaken by the appellant were merely accommodation entries taken for the purpose of such bogus Long Term Capital Gain made by the assessee during the previous year. It is apparent that, in the grab of alleged LTCG, the assessee earned exempt income of Rs.28,23,500/- and huge amount brought into the books without paying a single rupee of tax. The Ld.AO has very carefully analyzed the information received from the Investigation Wing, and has recorded the noteworthy features of the Company whose shares were purchased / sold by the assessee- individual. The economic parameters of the said company over the impugned period has also been brought on record, in the analysis. The rise and fall of the prices as recorded had been brought out by the Ld. AO to be artificial and not commensurate with the normal market, as the Company has no business at all. The Ld. AO has also brought forth information that the Regulatory Authority SEBI has also after investigating such abnormal price increases of certain stocks investigated the matter and suspended trading in certain scripts. It is very clear that the prices of these scripts fell sharply after the offloading of these scripts by pre-arranged and manipulated transactions. The entire transactions were carried out on the Stock Exchange to give it a color of real transactions.

2. I also find that the submissions made by the appellant during the course of the appeal point towards the elaborate documentation, meaning thereby that the appellant has produced papers relating to application for the shares, the allotment of the shares, the share certificates payments by cheque and the necessary papers filed before the Registrar of companies, where the name of the assessee has been reflected as a shareholder. The appellant has also filed proof of amalgamation of the companies wherein the shareholding has changed hands. It is also the contention of the appellant that it has provided copies of the bank statement, bank contract notes and delivery instructions to the broker by way of proof that an these transactions were genuine. However, In my view of the matter, it is precisely this elaborate paperwork that strengthens the matter relating to the bogus benefit of the LTCG, which clearly has been schemed, pre-planned and executed with mala fide intelligence and precision. Therefore all these papers are mere documents and not any evidence. The whole gamut of transactions are unnatural and highly suspicious, and therefore the rules of SUSPICIOUS TRRNSACTIONS ought to apply in the instant case. There are grave doubts in the story propounded by the assessee before the authorities below, None of the material produced before the Ld. AO by the assessee-appellant are enough to justify the humongous gains accruing to the assessee by way of Capital Gains,. In my considered view banking documents are mere self serving recitals. The lawit1 the matter of self-serving recitals has been long established by the Honble apex Court. In the case of CIT vs P Mohankala 291 ITR 278 , the Honble Supreme Court held that the money came by way of bank cheque and was paid through the process of banking transactions Was not by itself Of any consequences. 1/ The burden of proof is on the assessee in the matter of justification of receipts which are of suspicious and dubious nature, In the case of CIT Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) , their Lordships laying down the significance of human probabilities held as under: "in a case where a party relied on self serving recitals in documents, it was for that party to Page 29 establish the truth of those recitals: the taxing authorities were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to Find out the reality such recitals. " Similarly in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC), their Lordships held as under: "In view of section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee tor any previous veer, the same may be charged to income tax as the income of the assesses of that previous veer if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer not satisfactory. In such a case, there is prima facie, evidence against the assessee viz. the receipt of money, and if he fails to rebut, the said evidence being un-rebutted, can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature.In the case of Sajjan Das & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 435 (Delhi), their Lordships of the High Court of Delhi, while considering a case in which gifts were received by the assessee through banking channels laid importance on the capacity of the donor for making the gift and his identity as well as importance of relationship between the donor and done in determination of genuineness of gift held as under:

That a mere identification of the donor and showing the movement of the gift amount through banking channels was not sufficient to prove the genuineness of the gift. Since the claim of the gift was made by the assessee, the onus lay on him not only to establish the identity of the person making the gift but also his capacity to make a gift and that it had actually been received as a gift from the door.

In my considered view wherever documents are relied upon they should pass the test of normal behaviour of the assessee in the curse of business viz., human conduct, preponderance of probability and surrounding circumstances. In my considered view, even if documentary evidence is produced, the same must pass the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances if they do not, then addition justified. Reliance on such matters is placed on the case of Smt. Phoolwati Devi 314 ITR (AT) 1 (Del).

3. It must also be stated here that in Commissioner of Income Tax vs NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd on 22 November, 2013, the Honble Delhi High Court has held... ...

The Assessing Officer is both an investigator and an adjudicator. When a fact is alleged and stated before the Assessing Officer by an assessee, he must and should examine and verify, when in doubt or when the assertion is debatable. Normally a factual assertion made should be accepted by the Assessing Officer unless for justification and reasons the assessing officer feels that he needs/requires a deeper and detailed verification of the facts alleged. The assessee in such circumstances should cooperate and furnish papers, details and particulars. This may entail issue of notices to third parties to furnish and supply information or confirm facts or even attend as witness. The Assessing Officer can also refer to incriminating material or evidence available with him and call upon the assessee to file their response. We cannot lay down or state a general or universal procedure or method which should be adopted by the assessing officer when verification of facts in required. The manner and mode of conducting assessment proceedings has to be left to the discretion of the assessing officer, and the same should be just, fair and should not cause any harassment to the assessee or third persons from whom confirmation or verification is required. The verification and investigation should be one with the least amount of intrusion, inconvenience or harassment especially to third parties, who may have enter3ed into transactions with the assessee. The ultimate finding of the assessing officer should reflect due application or mind on the relevant facts and the decision should take into consideration the entire material, which is germane and which should not be ignored and exclude that which is irrelevant. Certain facts or aspects may be neutral and should be noted. These should not be ignored but they cannot become the bedrock or substratum of conclusion. The provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable, but the assessing officer being a quasi judicial authority, must take care and caution to ensure that the decision is reasonable and satisfies the cannons of equity, fairness and justice. The evidence should be impartially and objectively analyzed to ensure that the adverse findings against the assessee when recorded are adequately and duly supported by material and evidence and can withstand the challenge in appellate Page 30 proceedings. Principle of preponderance of probabilities applies. What is stated and the said standard, equally apply to the Tribunal and indeed this Court. The reasoning and the grounds given in any decision or pronouncement while dealing with the contentions and issues should reflect application of mind on the relevant aspects. When an assessee does not produce evidence or tries to avoid appearance before the Assessing Officer, it necessarily creates difficulties and prevents ascertainment of true and correct facts as the Assessing Officer is denied advantage of the contention or factual assertion by the assessee before him. In case an assessee deliberately and intentionally falls to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer with the desire to prevent inquiry or investigation, an adverse view should be taken.

4. In this connection, I also wish to refer to the decision of the Honble ITAT Bombay Bench B ITA(No.614/Bom/87 A.Y. 1983-84) in the case of M/s. Mont Blane Properties and Industries Pvt. Ltd., which was upheld by the Honble Supreme Court. The Horible Tribunal herd that the word evidence as used in sec. 143(3) covered circumstantial evidence also. The word evidence as used in sec. 143 (3) obviously could not be confined to direct evidence. The word evidence was comprehensive enough to cover the circumstantial evidence also. Under the tax jurisprudence, the word evidence had much wider connotations. While the word evidence might recall the oral and documentary evidence as may be admissible under the Indian evidence Act the use of word material in Sec.143(3) Snowed that the assessing officer, not being a court could rely upon material, which might not be evidence admissible under the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of making an order of assessment. Court often took judicial notice of certain facts which need not be proved before them. The plain reading of section 142 and 143 clearly suggests that the assessing officer may also act on the material gathered by him. The ward material dearly shows that the assessing officer is not fettered by the technical rules of evidence and the like, and that he may act on material which may not strictly speaking be accepted evidence in court of law.

5. The Honbte Supreme Court in CIT v, Durga Prasad More[1971] 82 ITR 540 at pages 545- 547 made a reference to the test of human probabilities in the following fact situation :.

... ... It is true that an apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the re4al. In a case of the present kind a party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals. Otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. If all that an assessee who wants to evade tax is to have some recitals made in a document either executed by him or executed in his favour then the door will be left wide-open to evade tax. A little probing was sufficient in the present case to show that the apparent was not the real. The taxing authorities were not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. They were entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality9 of the recitals made in those documents....

6. It is well settled principle of law as declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT (214 ITR 801) (SC) that the true nature of transaction have to be ascertained in the light of surrounding circumstances. IT needs to be emphasized that standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt has no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the investigation report. Further, the Honble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal Vs CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 , highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules evidence, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Honble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mel V CIT (supra) held that what was meant by saying that evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under Income-tax Act,1961, was that the rigors of Rules of evidence, contained in the Evidence Act was not applicable; but Page 31 that did not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous of invoking the principles of Evidence Act, in proceedings before them, they were prevented from doing so. It was further held by the Honble Apex Court that all that Section 110 of the Evidence Act, 1872 did, was to embody a salutary principle of common law, jurisprudence viz, where a person was found in possessing of anything, the onus of proving that he was not its owner, was on that person. Thus, this principle could be attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfies its conditions and was applicable to taxing proceedings.

7. I am in agreement with the Ld. AO that the transactions relating to the claim of LTCG as made by the Ld. AO come within the ambit of "suspicious transactions", and therefore the rules of suspicious transactions would apply to the case. Payment through Banks, performance through stock exchange and other such features are only apparent features. The real features are the manipulated and abnormal price of off load and the sudden dip thereafter. Therefore, I have to reach the inevitable conclusion that the transactions as discussed by the Ld.AO fall in the realm of "suspicious" and "dubious" transactions. The Ld. AO has therefore necessarily to consider the surrounding circumstances, which he indeed has done in a very meticulous and careful manner. In the case of Win Chadha Vs CIT (International Taxation) in ITA No.3088 &: 3107/Del/200S the Honble Delhi ITAT "B"-Bench has observed, on 31.12.2010 as under: "SUSPICIOUS AND DIBI0US TRASANCTI0N HOW TO BE DEALT WITH: 6.11, The tax liability in the cases of suspicious transactions, is to be assessed on the basis of the material available on record, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of incriminating information/ evidence available with AO.

6.12. In the case of Sumati Dayal V. CIT (1995) 80 Taxman 89 (SC), the Honble Supreme Court has dealt with the relevance of human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and surrounding circumstance, burden of proof and its shifting on the Department in cases of suspicious Circumstances, by following observations: ",,,,. It is, no doubt, true that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies on the department to prove that It is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income; the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within exemption provided by the lies upon the assessee, But in view of section 68, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, not satisfactory. In such case there is prima facie eYid~l1ce against the assessee, vtz., the receipt of money, and if he falls to rebut the same, the said evidence being un- rebutted, can be used against him by holding that il is a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee, the department cannot, however, act unreasonably. ... ... Having regard to the conduct of the appellant as disclosed in her sworn statement as well as other material on the record, an inference could reasonably be drawn that the winning tickets were purchased by the appellant after the event. The majority opinion after considering surrounding circumstances and applying the test of human probabilities had rightly concluded that the appellants claim about the amount being her winning from races, was not genuine. It could not be said that the explanation offered by the appellant in respect of the said amounts had been rejected unreasonably and that the findings that the said amounts were income of the appellant from, other sources was not based on evidence.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HOW TO BE USED Page 32

6.13 It would, at this stages, be relevant to consider the admissibility and use of circumstantial evidence in income tax proceedings. Circumstantial evidence is evidence of the circumstances, as opposed to direct evidence. It may consist of evidence afforded by the bearing on the fact to be proved, of other and subsidiary facts, which are relied on as inconsistent with any result other than the truth of the principal fact. It is evidence of various facts, other than the truth of the principle fact. It is evidence of various are so associated with the fact in issue, that taken together, they form a chain of circumstances leading to an inference or presumption of the existence of the principal fact. In the appreciation of circumstantial evidence, the relevant aspects, as laid down from time to time are (1) the circumstances alleged must be established by such evidence, as in the case of other evidence. (2) the circumstances proved m9uste be of a conclusive nature and not totally inconsistent with the circumstances or contradictory to other evidence. (3) although there should be no missing links in the case, yet it is not essential that every one of the links must appear on the surface of the evidence adduced; some of these links may have to inferred from the proved facts; (4) in drawing those inferences or presumptions, the Authorities must have regarded to the common course of natural events, to human conduct and their relation to the facts of the particular case. (5) The circumstantial evidence can, with equal facility, be restored to in proof of a fact in issue which arises in proceedings for the assessment of taxes both direct and indirect, circumstantial evidence can be made use of in order to prove or disprove a fact alleged or in issue. In fact, in whatever proceedings or context inferences are required to be drawn from the evidence or materials available or lacking, circumstantial evidence has its place to assist the process of arriving at the truth.

6.14 It will also be worthwhile to consider the nature of burden of proof on the AO for proving a fact or circumstances in the income tax proceedings. The questions raised about the tax liability by the AO are to be answered by the assessee by furnishing reasonable and plausible explanations. If assessee is not forthcoming with proper or complete facts or his statement or explanation is contradictory, drawing of suitable inferences and estimation of facts is inevitable. Courts generally will not interfere with such estimate of facts, unless the inferences or estimates are perverse or capricious.

6.15. The Assessees technical contentions about admissibility and reliance on material available on the AOs record are in the nature of contentions challenging criminal or civil liabilities in a court of law. We are dealing with a process of adjudication of assessees tax liability i.e. assessment under Income Tax Act rather than conducting criminal or civil court proceedings. As held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Gadgil (supra) no lis is involved in adjudication of tax liability. The Assessees contention that there was no new material before the AO after the CIT(A)s setting aside order cannot be accepted. New information and material did indeed come on record. In our view, in a sensitive matter like this, even a single clue or revelation can be of great importance. To reverse the order of the AO on this technical plea will amount to taking a lopsided view of the proceedings. Besides, the JPC has underlined the importance of Reports of investigation agencies like CBI DRI, ED whose were in the offing, as the relevant investigations were in process. In view of these observations, we do not accede to the assessees pleas in this behalf. The Assessees contentions and objections in this behalf that the material available on record was not admissible as evidence and that it cannot be relied on by the AO, are devoid of any merit and are rejected outright..... Page 33

8. When the impossible is projected as possible through a plethora of well arranged documents, It would be very reasonable to reject the documents outright as make believe and self serving. In the Case of Usha Chandresh Shah Vs ITO, Ward-19(1)(2), Mumbai, the Honble ITAT- F"- Bench Mumbai by their Order for A.Y 2006-07 dated 26th September, 2014 have, in the operational portion adjudicated as under: [ Quote]

9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The pertinent points are that me assessee has claimed to have purchased the impugned shares through Off market transaction. The purchase price was not paid by Cheque, but it was claimed to have been adjusted against the speculation profit claimed to have been made by the assessee. The small difference of Rs.324/- was claimed to have been paid by way of cash. It is .,(so pertinent to note that the alleged Speculation transaction carried out earlier to the purchase of shares of Prime Capital Markets Ltd was also claimed to have been carried in off market transaction. Another important point is that the assessee did not possess copies of Share certificates or copies of Share transfer forms. The , broker M/s Khandelwal & Co., has expressed its inability to furnish copies of contract notes available with it and also failed to furnish its books of account to substantiate the transactions of purch85e of shares by the assessee. Since the impugned transaction was an off market transaction, the purchase transaction could not be confirmed by the Kolkata Stock exchange. The seta shares were earlier held by M/s Brightsun Merchants (P) Ltd .and the assessee had purchased the shares from them. The notice issued to M/s Brightsun Merchants (P) Ltd was returned unserved by the postal authorities with the remark "unknown". In this regard the assessee had replied that the name of the company was wrongly mentioned by the AO as M/s Brightsuns (P)Ltd and hence the notice got returned. But there is not comment about the address, meaning thereby, the AO had issued notice to the correct address only and hence the slight variation in the name of the company would not normally make any difference. Hence the fact that the notice was returned back only shows that the seller of the shares could not be identified. All these discussions would show that the purchase transaction could not be cross verified by the assessing officer.

10. One more point to be noted here is that the speculation transactions can be entered only payment of margin money. But the details of said payment are not available. With regard to the query raised by the AO relation to Margin money, the broker M/s D,K. KhandeJwal & Co has replied In the context of purchase of shares of M/s Prime Capital Markets Ltd and not in the context of speculation transactions. Thus, It is seen that the question of keeping margin money for speculation transactions remains unanswered both by the assessee as well as by the Share broker cited above. Further the speculation transaction is also claimed to be an off market transaction, which further casts shadow of doubt over the claim put forth by the assessee.

11. Though the assessee has claimed to have purchased the shares in physical formation May, 2004, she chose to D-Mat the same only in June 2005, just two months prior to its sale, The shares were sold through a share broker named Sanju Kabra, who is indicted SEBI for rigging the prices of penny stock shares. It is pertinent to note that the share prices of M/s Prime Capital Markets Ltd went from Rs.5.17 (May, 2004) to Rs.279.50 (Sep., 2005). The assessee could not furnish any reasons or at-least stock market news to support: the abnormal increase In the prices of the above said shares. The financial statements of the above said company were also not produced. Though M/s Prime Capital Markets Led has confirmed the entries in its books of account with regard to the purchases made by the assessee, it could not identify the name of purchaser to whom the shares were sold by the assessee. Page 34

12. We have already seen the the tax authorities have applied the test of human probabilities explained by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Sumati Dayal and Durga Prased More (supra) to disbelieve the claim of Long term Capital gains put forth by the assessee. We notice that the test of human probabilities was not applied by the co-ordinate benches of Tribunal In the case of Shri Avinosh Kantilal Jain (supra) and Mr. Shyam R Pawar (supra). Hence, in our view) the assessee cannot take support from the above said decisions, We further notice that the ld CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decision dated 04.1.2011 rendered by ITAT Delhi In the case of Haresh Win Chaddha Vs. DDIT, wherein the Tribunal has expressed the view that there is no presumption in law that the AO is supposed to discharge an impossible burden to assess the tax liability by direct evidence only and to establish the evasion beyond doubt as in criminal proceedings. Further It was held that: the AO can assess on consideration of material available on record, surrounding circumstances, human conduct, preponderance of probabilities and nature of Incriminating information / evidence available on record.

13. In the case of Smt. Jamnadevi Agrawal (supra), the Honble Bombay High Court has upheld the order of Tribunal on the reasoning that no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. A perusal of the above said order would Show that the revenue in the above said case had contended that the assessees in the group have purchased and sold shares of similar compat1ieS through the same broker. Further the purchase prices and sale prices were supported by producing the evidence to show that the said transactions were undertaken at the rates prevailing on the respective dates. Under these set of facts, the High Court held that the findings given by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with the further held that the decision rendered by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (supra) was not applicable. In the case of Shri Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (supra), the Honble Bombay high court has observed that the assessee has furnished copies of share certificates to show that the shares were in fact transferred to the name of the assessee before it. Further there was no allegation that the prices of shares purchased by the assessee in the case before High court were manipulated.

14. However, in the instant case, the assessee could not produce the copies of share certificates and copies of share transfer forms. The transaction of purchase of shares could not be cross verified. The shares of M/s Prime Capital Markets Ltd was declared as Penny Stock by SEBI and the broker Sanaju Kabra, through whom the shares were sold by the assessee was indicated for manipulating the prices of penny stock shares. Hence, in our view, the tax authorities have rightly applied the test of human probabilities to examine the claim of purchase and sale of shares made by the assessee.

15. We notice that the M9umbai D bench has considered an identical issue in the case of Shri Ramesh Kumar D Jain in ITA No.3192/Mum/2010 relating to assessment year 2006-07. The Tribunal vide its order dated 15-06-2011, rejected the claim of making speculation gains on the reasoning that speculation transactions could not haves been entered into by the assessee therein without paying margin money to the broker. Accordingly, the claim of purchase of shares was rejected by the Tribunal and consequently the claim of sale of shares was also rejected. It is pertinent to note that, in the decisions relied upon by the assessee, the claim of speculation profits was not considered by the Tribunal. In yet another case of Shri Araving M Kariya considered by A bench of Mumbai ITAT, the test of human probabilities was applied to reject the claim of profit realized on sale of penny stocks. There should not be any dispute that the onus to produce necessary evidences to convincingly show that the shares were purchased and sold at the prices claimed always lies upon the assessee. Our Page 35 view finds support from the decision rendered by Honble Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Jasvinder Kaur (357 ITR 638)

16. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the decisions relied upon by the assessee cannot be taken support of by the assessee for the reasons discussed supra. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was justified in confirming the order of the assessing officer by applying the test of human probabilities.

17. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. [Unquote]

9. Reliance is also placed In the case of Somnath Maini Vs ITO (226) 100 TTJ 917 wherein the Honble Chandigarh bench of ITAT held that if facts and circumstances so warrant that it does not accord with the test of human probabilities, transactions have to be held to be non genuine.

3. The relevant facts briefly stated are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that assessee had incurred a long term capital loss on account of sale of gold jewellery declared under the VDIS, 1997, amounting to Rs.19,87,705 and also there was a short-term capital gain near to this amount of long-term capital loss amounting to Rs.20,36,700 resulting into net capital gain of Rs.48,995. The AO on perusal of record further observed that in the case of a family member of the same assessee Shri D.C. Maini, in the same assessment year, similar exercise has been done by the assessee wherein a long-term capital loss of Rs.11,59,066 had been incurred on account of sale of gold jewellery declared under the VDIS and short-term capital gain of Rsw.11,75,100 resulting into a net gain of Rs.16,034. On going through the nature of transactions, the AO doubted the genuineness of the short-term capital gain in the case of the assessee and he made further inquiry that during the year assessee had purchased 45,000 shares of M/s Ankur International Ltd. At varying rates from Rs.2,06 to Rs.3.1 per share and sold them within a short span of six-seven months at the rate varying from Rs.47.75 to Rs.55. These shares were purchased through a broker Munish Arora & Co. And sold through another broker M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. The AO took by surprise the astronomical rise in shares price of a company from Rs.3 to Rs.55 and started further inquiry. The AO issued notice under Section 131 to both the brokers from whom shares were purchased and sold and statements were recorded. The AO also analyzed the balance sheet of M/s Ankur International Ltd. To justify as to how the share price of a company can go up from a mere Rs.3 to Rs.55 in a short span of six to seven months time. The AO made detailed and extraneous exercise of finding the fundamental of the share of the company by different methods and concluded that these shares were not genuine and transactions were so arranged so as to cover up the loss incurred on account of sale of jewellery only. the AO also recorded the finding that transactions were done at Ludhiana where also the share price of the company is quoted but maximum value of the share quoted was Rs.17 but that was only in July, 1997, i.e. long before the shares were sold by the assessee to M/s S/.K. Sharma & Co. In the months of February and March, 1998. The AO also recorded the finding that although the shares were transferred in the name of the assessee, they were still lying in the name of assessee much after the sale to M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that both the brokers from whom the shares have been purchased and sold were called under Section 31 by the AO. Both have confirmed the sale and purchase of said shares. Other aspect of the facts and circumstances raised by the AO was not discussed by the CIT(A) in his order. Page 36

4. In appeal before us, the learned Departmental Representative contended that it is highly improbable that shares of a company go up so high in few months time. The learned Departmental Representative took us through various pages of the assessment order and the paper book wherein sale bill of the shares with the said M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. were also filed. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that shares have been sold at Ludhiana when actually stock exchange was not functional a fact which is also recorded by the AO. The learned Departmental Representative also pointed out that shares have been sold to M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. On 9 th Feb., 1998 and 23 rd March, 1998, whereas from the statement of account of M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. Payments have been received by the assessee from 31 st March, 1988 to 27 th July, 1998, meaning thereby that had the transactions been genuine, payment could have been received in one go by S./K. Sharma & Co. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that any such type of transactions relating to these types of company operating on stock exchanges payments are received in piecemeal whereas in normal market share transactions, contract notes are issued by the broker and payments are received in one go. The learned Departmental Representative also argued that as per the statement of S.K. Sharma & Co. Recorded at the time of inquiry, he did not produce any books of account and identity of persons to whom the shares have been sold. Ordinarily, when brokers are enquired about share transactions, they keep proper books of account form, whom shares have been purchased and sold. However, in this case, S.K. Sharma & Co. failed to provide the names of purchases of the shares and identity of the purchasers.

5. On the other hand, the leaned Authorised Representative contended that in the share market, share price does not move according to the fundamentals of a company. They go up and down as per sentiments prevailing at that time. To controvert, the argument of the learned Departmental Representative, he argued that share prices are quoted at Jaipur Stock Exchange and were quoted on the relevant date of sale at the same price on which shares were sold to M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. However, the learned Departmental Representative controverted his argument by saying that volume of transactions on the relevant dates is only 600 shares on 9 th Feb., 1998 and 1000 shares on 23 rd March, 1998 whereas number of shares involved in the transactions with S.K. Sharma & Co. are 45000 shares.

6. After hearing the rival submissions, going through the orders of authorities below and paper book, we find that M/s Ankur International Ltd., although it is a quoted company, its shares were not being transacted at Ludhiana Stock Exchange ate, the relevant time. Shares have been purchased and sold through the brokers and payments have been received in cheque on different dates as per the statement of account of M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. Factual matrix of the case from start of the purchase of shares at the rate of Rs.3 to the sale of shares at Rs.55 in a short span of time and shares being not, quoted at Ludhiana Stock Exchange and the way in which different, installment payments have been received from the brokers and non-availability of the records of the brokers and the shares remaining in the name of assessee even long after the sale of the shares does not stand the test of probabilities. As rightly pointed out by the learned Departmental Representative, these types of companies function in the capital market whose sale price is manipulated to astronomical height only to create the artificial transaction in the form of capital gain. Surrounding circumstances differ from the normal share market Page 37 transactions in which they are ordinarily carried out. Taking all the steps together, final conclusion does not accord with the human probabilities. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Durga Prasad More held as under: It is a story that does not accord with human probabilities. It is strange that High Court found fault with the Tribunal for not swallowing that story. If that story is found to be unbelievable as the Tribunal has found and in our opinion, rightly that the decisions remains that the consideration for the sale proceeded from the assessee and therefore, it must be assumed to be his money. It is surprising that the High Court has found fault with theO for not examining the wife and the father-in-law of the assessee for proving the Departments case. All that we can say is that the High Court has ignored the facts of life. It is unfortunate that, the High Court has taken a superficial view of the onus that lay on the Department.

7. The learned CIT(A) only got swayed by the issuance of notice by the AO under Section 131 to both the brokers from whom shares were purchased and sold and came to the conclusion that share transactions were genuine overlooking the material gathered by the AO from the statements recorded of broker M/s S.K. Sharma & Co. and the other facts and circumstances that volume of transactions of Jaipur Stock Exchange is only 600 shares and 1000 shares. Payments have been received from the brokers only in installments over a period of 6-7 months. It is true that when transactions are through cheques, it looks like real transaction but authorities are permitted to look behind the transactions and find out the motive behind transactions. Generally, it is expected that apparent is real but it is not sacrosanct. If facts and circumstances so warrant that it does not accord with the test of human probabilities, transactions have been held to be non-genuine, it is highly improbable that share price of a worthless company can go from Rs.3 to Rs.55 in a short span of time. Mere payment by cheque and receipt by cheque does not. Render a transaction genuine. Capital gain tax was created to operate in a real world and not that of make belief. Facts of the case only lead to the inference that these transactions are not genuine and make believe only to offset the loss incurred on the sale of jewellery declared under VDIS. In considered view that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the impugned addition. We, accordingly set aside order of the CIT(A) and restore that of the AO.

8. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed. [Unquote]

10. Moreover, all the judgements relied upon by the appellant fall flat in the face of the facts of the case, and the preponderance of probability against the assessee. In a decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs. Pr. CIT by their order dated 10 th April, 2017 have upheld the orders of the Honble ITGAT, Nagpur Bench dated 18.07.2016 in ITA No.61/Nag/2013 in Sanjay Bimalchand Jain Vs ITO, Ward-4(2), Nagpur, wherein it was held that on the facts emergent in the case, and the preponderance of probabilities, entire Capital Gains claims were to be treated as fictitious and bogus. Page 38 Bogus LTCG from Penny stocks. The assessee has not tendered cogent evidence to explain how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5 had jumped to Rs.485 in no time. The fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis to justify the price rise. The assessee had indulged in a dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of long term capital gain. The gain has accordingly to be assessed as undisclosed credit u/s. 68. In view of the above discussion, I find no infirmity in the orders of the Ld. AO, and I confirm the same, holding the claim of LTCG of Rs.28,23,500/- to be bogus. As a natural corollary, I also confirm the addition of Rs.14,118;- as made by the Ld. AO. Therefore these grounds of appeal numbering 1 to 6 stands dismissed.

4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival contentions. Learned departmental representative vehemently supports both the lower authorities identical action holding the assessees STCL as bogus since derived from rigging of the scrip prices in issue and involving accommodation entry in collusion with the concerned entry operators. Honble apex courts decisions in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 80 Taxmann.89/214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 (SC) are quoted before me during the course of hearing at the Revenues behest. It strongly argues that the department has disallowed/added the impugned STCL based on circumstantial evidence unearthed after a series of search actions / investigations undertaken by the DDIT(Inv). I find no merit in Revenues instant arguments. The fact remains that the assessee has duly placed on record the relevant contract notes, share certificate(s), detailed corroborative documentary evidence indicating purchase / sale of shares through registered brokers by banking channel, demat statements etc., The Revenues only case as per its pleadings and both the lower authorities unanimously conclusion that there is very strong circumstantial evidence against the assessee suggesting bogus STCL accommodation entries. I find that there is not even a single case which could pin-point any making against these assessees which could be taken as a revenue nexus. I make it clear that the CBDTs circular dated 10.03.2003 has itself made it clear that mere search statements in the nature of admission in absence of supportive material do not carry weight. I notice that this tribunals co- ordinate benchs decision in ITA No. 2474/Kol/2018 in Mahavir Jhanwar vs. ITO decided on 01.02.2019 has taken into consideration identical facts and circumstances as well as latest developments on legal side whilst deleting the similar bogus LTCG addition as follows:- Page 39 2. The sole issue that arises for my adjudication is whether the Assessing Officer was right in rejecting the claim of the assessee that he had earned Long Term Capital Gains on purchase and sale of the shares of M/s Unno Industries. The AO based on a general report and modus operandi adopted generally and on general observations has concluded that the assessee has claimed bogus long term capital gain. He made an addition of the entire sale proceeds of the shares as income and rejected the claim of exemption made u/s 10(38) of the. The evidence produced by the assessee in support of the genuineness of the transaction was rejected.

3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal and the ld. CIT(A), Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon circumstantial evidence and human probabilities to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called rules of suspicious transaction. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed by the assessee, in support of the genuineness of the transactions. In other words, the overwhelming evidence filed by the assessee remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. The entire conclusions drawn by the revenue authorities, are based on a common report of the Director of Investigation, Kolkata, which was general in nature and not specific to any assessee. The assessee was not confronted with any statement or material alleged to be the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing of the department and which were the basis on which conclusion were drawn against the assessee. Copy of the report was also not given.

4. The ld. D/R, submitted that the transaction was not genuine. He argued that the entire capital gain was stage managed by a few operators and investors. He relied on the order of ld. Assessing Officer and argued that the same be upheld. He relied on the order of the Chennai A Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF) vs. ITO in ITA No. 1413 to 1420/CHNY/2018; order dt. 06/12/2018, for the proposition that such capital gains have to be brought to tax. He also relied on the judgment of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1, Nagpur; [2018] 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) and the decision of the Smt. M.K. Rajeshwari vs. ITO; ITA No.1723/Bng/2018; Assessment Year 2015-16, order dt. 12/10/2018.

5. After hearing both sides, I find that in a number of cases this bench of the Tribunal and Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court has consistently held that, decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. In all cases additions were deleted. Some of the cases were, detailed finding have been given on this issue, are listed below:- Sl.No. ITA No.s Name of the Assessee Date of order/judgment 1 ITA No.714 to 718/Kol/2011 ITAT, Kolkata DICT vs. Sunita Khemka 28.10.2015 2 214 ITR 244 Calcutta High Court CIT vs. Carbo Industrial Holdings Ltd. 3 250 ITR 539 CIT vs. Emerald Commercial Ltd. 23.03.2001 4 ITA No.1236-1237/Kol/2017 5 ITA No.569/Kol/2017 Gautam Pincha 15.11.2017 6 ITA No.443/Kol/2017 Kiran Kothari HUF 15.11.2017 7 ITA No.2281/Kol/2017 Navneet Agarwal vs. ITO 20.07.2018 8 ITA No.456 of 2007 Bombay High Court CIT vs. Shri Mukesh Ratilal Marolia

18.01.2018 Page 40

9. ITA No.95 of 2017 (O&M) PCIT vs. Prem Pal Gandhi 18.01.2018 10 ITA No.1089/Kol/2018 Sanjay Mehta 28.09.2018

6. Regarding the case laws relied upon by the ld. Departmental Representative, I find that, in the case of M/s. Pankaj Agarwal & Sons (HUF)(supra), the issue was decided against the assessee for the reason that, the assessee could not justify his claim as genuine by producing evidence and was only arguing for the matter to be set aside to the lower authorities on the ground of natural justice. As similar arguments were not raised before the lower authorities by the assessee, theAT rejected these arguments. In the case on hand, all evidences were produced by the assessee. In the case of Sanjay Bimalchand Jain, legal heir of Santi Devi Bimalchand Jain, the Honble High Court upheld the stand of the Revenue that the transaction in question is an adventure in nature of trade and the profit of the transactions is assessable under the head of Business Income. In the case on hand, the ld. Assessing Officer has not assessed this amount as Business Income. In any event, I am bound to follow the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in this matter. I find that the assessee has filed all necessary evidences in support of the transactions. Some of these evidences are (a) evidence of purchase of shares, (b) evidence of payment for purchase of shares made by way of account payee cheque, copy of bank statements, (c) copy of balance sheet disclosing investments, (d) copy of demat statement reflecting purchase, (e) copy of merger order passed by the High Court , (f) copy of allotment of shares on merger, (g) evidence of sale of shares through the stock exchange, (h) copy of demat statement showing the sale of shares, (i) copy of bank statement reflecting sale receipts, (j) copy of brokers ledger, (k) copy of Contract Notes etc.

7. The proposition of law laid down in these case laws by the Jurisdictional High Court as well as by theAT Kolkata on these issues are in favour of the assessee. These are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The ld. Departmental Representative, though not leaving his ground, could not controvert the claim of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the issue in question is covered by the above cited decisions of the Honble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court and theAT. I am bound to follow the same.

8. In view of the above discussion I delete the addition made u/s 68 of the, on account of Long Term Capital Gains.

5. Coupled with this, honble jurisdictional high courts other decisions in CIT vs. Rungta Properties Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.105 of 2016, CIT vs. Shreyahi Ganguly ITA No. 196 of 2012, M/s Classic Growers Ltd vs. CIT ITA No. 129 of 2012 also hold such transactions in scrips supported by the corresponding relevant evidence to be genuinene. I adopt the above extracted reasoning mutatis mutandis therefore to delete the impugned STCL disallowance / addition of Rs.28,23,500/-. Unexplained commission expenditure disallowance, if any shall automatically follow suit as a necessary corollary. No other argument or ground has been agitated before me during Page 41 the course of hearing. This lead case ITA No.2623/Kol/2018 is allowed in above terms. [Same order to follow in all the remaining eighty nine appeal(s)] in absence of any distinction being pointed out at Revenues behest.

6. All these assessees ninety appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case file(s). Order pronounced in open court on 26/06/2019 Sd/- (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member Kolkata, *Dkp/Sr.PS #- 26/06/2019    / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1. /Appellant-Anshej ShahLansdownHeight,FL-9A, 6, Sarat Bose Rd. Kol-20/ Shi Saurav Agarwal Sukhi Sansar,134, Salkia School Rd. Salkia, Howrah Pin-711106/Sunil D Shah Lansdown Height, FL-9A, 6 Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-20/Deo Chand Samsukha, HUF, Shop No. B-17, Gr. Floor, 22, Bonfield Lane, Dalhouse, Kolkatka-001/Kuntal Prasad Chatterjee, 10, Clive Row, 5 th Fl. Kolkata-001/Rina Sahana/Sushila Baid C/o S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seben Brothers Lodge, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly- 712105/Smt Mukta Agarwal 1, India Exchange Place-1 st Fl, R.No.110, Kolkata-001/ Babita Agarwal-Sanjay Kr. Agarwal/Sunita Sanganeria-Sanjeev Sanganaereia(HUF)-Sanjeev Sanganaeria Flat No.5D 24 Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-33/Ayush Saha-Alka J. Shah Landsdown Height, FL-9A, 6, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-20/Sudheer Kr. Jain C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1 Gibson Lane, Suit 213, 2 nd Floor, Kolkata-69/Sri Soumitra Joshi, 11, Goenka Lane Kolkata-007/Bimal Jajodia C/o P.K. Madthur, Advocate, 1, Meredith Street, Kolkata-72/Shri Mahendra Kr. Periwal, R.No.19, 1 st Fl, Bhagat Chamber, 12A, Netaji Subash Road, Kolkata-001/Sushil Kumar Daga (HUF), 3A, Mullick Street, C/o. Sushil Company, 1 st Floor, Kolkata-007/ Sri Sumit Jain, 12/2 Sovaram Bysack Street, Burrabazar, Kolkata-007/Rajesh Kr. Sarda HUF 412, Mukti Chambers, 4, Clive Row, Kolkata-001/Sandeep Redh (HUF), 133, Canning St. 3 rd Fl, R.No.24, Kolkata- 001/M/s Neelesh Choudhur (HUF), 10, Old Post Office St. Kolkata-001/Shri Rajendra Kr. Hirawat, R.No.33, 3 rd Floor, 133, Canning Street, Kolkata-001/Smt.Sikha Bagaria, 200, Bangur Avenue, Block-A, Kolkata-55/Sri Keshri Singh Kochar C/o Sri S.L. Kochar, Advocate, 5, Ashsutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkaa-19/Suman Kumar-Sunita Goyal, 32, Ezra Street, R.No.854, Todi Corner, Kolkata-001/Swati Bajaj, C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2 nd Fl, Kolkata-69/Manish Yaduka Shree Krishan Chambers, 78, Bentinck Street, 5 th Floor, Suite No.1E, Kolkata- 001/Pooja Jhunjhunwala-Aayush Jhunjhunwala(HUF-Aayush Jhunjhunwala, HB-319, Sector-III, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-106/M/s Vinod Kr. Agrawal-Vinita Agrawal Lavel-3, Central Plaza, C-11, 41, B.B. Ganguly Street, Kolkata-12/Kiran Agarwal- Shyam Kr. Baid- Tapati Sahana-Souvik Sahana-Suraj Sahana C/o S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Seven Page 42 Brothers lodge, P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly-712105/ Shri Vivek Madhogaria-Kailash Kr. Madhogaria(HUF), 42, Dobson Road, 2 nd Floor, Golabari, Howrah- 711101/Smt. Shilpi Jain 174, Rabindra Sarani, Burrabazar, Kolkata-007/Shri Praveen Kumar Agrawal, CF-307, Salt Lake City, Sector-1, North 24 Parganas, Kolkatka-64/Shri Ram Awatar Dhoot, 29B, Rabindra Sarani, 3 rd Floor, R.No.10E, Kolkata-73/Vinod Kr. Agarwal, 5 Clive Row, R.No.23, 1 st Floor, Kolkata-001/Ajay KR. Shaw, 12, A.L. Daw Road, Budge Budge, Kolkata-137/P.K. Sharma Sons HUF, 4 Fairlie Place, HMP House, 1 st Fl. R.No.104, Kolkata-001/Begraj Agarwal & Others (HUF), Diamond Heritage Unit No. 609, 16 Strand Road,Kolkatka-001/Mohini Devi Pansari, Poddar court, Gate No.3, 2 nd Fl. 18, Rabindra Sarani, Kolkata-01/Pramod Baid HUF 313, Todi Chambers, 2 Lal Bazar St. Kolkata-001/Shri Rajesh Agarwal 88/2A, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Rd. 5 th Fl. Kolkata-16/Ritu Jain 8B, Diamond Tower, 37, Diamond Harbour Rd. Kolkata-27/M/s Premchand Hanuman MAL Bucha (HUF) 10, Murlidhar Sen Lane, Burrabazar, Kolkakta-001/Shri Gourav Gupta-Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, C/o. K.N. Gupta & Associates, 37A, Bentinck Street, R.No.414, 4 th Fl, Kolkata- 69/Shri Shyam Sundar Didwania, DB-06, Sector-1, Salt Lake City Kolkata-64/Shri Sidharth Dassani, Wardley House, 2 nd Floor, 25C, Swallow Lane, Old China Bazar, Kolkata/Sushila Madhogaria-Satish Madhogaria(HUF)-Md. Irshad Aziz/Md. Sharique C/o S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 5, Ahutosh Chowdhury Avenue, Kolkata-19/Parichay Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. C/o RSVPC & Co. 41A AJC Bose rd. Suite No.613, 6 th Fl.Kolkakt-17/Kamraj Traders & Foods Pvt. Ltd., 36, Strand Road, 1 st Floor, R.No.8, Kolkata-001/Sajjadbhai Nurfuddin Nandarbarwala, -Premlata Agarwal, C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2 nd Fl, Kolkakta-69/Sri Rajesh Agarwal 3/1 Ahmed Mamuji St, G.T. Road(N), Howrah-711204/Narendra Kr. Goyal C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2 nd Floor, Kolkta-69/Pawan Kr. Agarwal, 7, Rabindra Sarani, 5 th Floor, Kokata-001/Kamlesh Agarwal, Flat No.1 4K, Block-4, Windsor Casatle, 74/1, Narkeldanga Main Road, Kolkata-54/Jemish Shah, 70, Canning Street, Kolkata- 001/S.N.Lahoti & Sons(HUF), 171, Ramakrishna Lane, Shibpur, Howrah-711102/Maahesh Lahoti 171, Ramkrishna Lane, OP. Pally Math, Shibpur, Howwrah-711102/Dayamaye Marble & Granite, C/o. S.N.Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, Seven BrothersLodge P.O. Buroshibtala, P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly-712105/Anand Lohia 24A, Shree Niketan, 20, Dobson Lane, Howrah-711101/Punam Parsuramka C/o Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2 nd Floor, Kolkata-69/Krishna Kr. Parsuramka, 223A, N.S. Road, 7 th Fl, Fortuna Tower R.No.4A, Kolkata-001/Kushal Agarwal Ideal Grand, Block- A, Flat No.7F,456, G.T. Road (South), Howrah-711102/Dinesh Kr. Agarwal, 21, Hemanta Basu Sarania, 2 nd Floor, Unit-227, Kolkata-001/Sri Gopal Krishna Banka, 16/2C, Armenian Street, Burra Bazar, Kokata-001/Ashok Kr. Redh (HUF), 133, Canning Street, 3 rd Floor, R.No. 24, Kolkata-001/Smt. Anju Devi Patwari, 19, Synagogue St. 5 th Fl, Kolkata-01/Ravi Kr. Daga-Ravi Kr. Daga[HUF], 3A, Mullick Street, Kolkata-007/Pawan KR. Goenka, Todi Chambers, 2, Lal Bazar Street, 2 nd Fl, R.No.217, Kolkata-001, M/s Prakash Patawari [HUF] P-12, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, Burrabazar, Kolkata/Sri Uttam Jhawar 71/A/2, Aliporfe Road, Kolkata-27/Rita Devi Agarwal, 2 nd Fl, Akshytara Apartment, Sevoke Road, 2 nd Mile, Siliguri-734001

2. /Respondent-ITO Ward, 31(3), 10B, Middleton Row,4 th Fl. Kolkata/ITO Ward 63(2), 169 AJC Bose Rd. 9 th Floor, R.No.16, Kolkata-14/ITO Wd. 31(4), 10B, Middleton Row, 4 th Fl,Kolkata-54/ITO Wd/34(3), 10, Shanti Pally, Uttarapan, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata-107/ ITO Wd-35(3), 110, Shantipally, 9 th Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva Kolkata/ITO Wd-23(4), Aayakar Bhawan, G.T. Road, Khadina More, P.O.&P.S. Chinsurah, Pin-712101/ACIT, Circle-35, 110, Shantipaly, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-43(4), 3 Govt. Place (West), Kolkata-001/ITO Wd-25(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, Kolkata-68/ITO Wd-31(3), 10-B, Middleton Row, 4 th Floor, Kolkata-71/ITO Wd-63(1), 169, AJC Bose Road, Page 43 Bamboo Villa, 9 th Floor, Kolkatak-14/ITO Wd-45(2), 3, Government Place(East), Gr. Fl. Kolkata-001/ITO Wd-34(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-108/ITO Wd-35(4), Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-108/ITO Wd-45(2), 3, Govt. Place, Gr. Fl, R.No.19, Kolkata-001/ITO Wd-36(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 8 th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-108/ITO Wd-36(3), Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, R.No.812, 8 th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-35(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 7 th Fl. R.No.716, 110, Shantipalli, E.M.Byepass, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-36(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 8 th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-108/ITO Wd-49(3), Uttarapan, Manicktala, Civic Centre, Ultadanga/ITO Wd-35(3), 110, Shantipally, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd- 36(4), Aayakar Bhavan (Poorva), 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-36(2), Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 9 th Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-108/ITO Wd/22(4), 54/1 Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata/ITO Wd-51(2) Uttrapan Market Building, Manicktala, Civic Centre, Kolkata-54/ITO Wd-37(3), 3. Govt. Place (West),1 st Fl. Kolkata-001/ACIT, Circle-61, 169, AJC Bose Road, Bamboo Villa Central Revenue Building, 9 th Fl. R.No.7 Kolkakta-14/ITO Wd-23(2), Aaykar Bhawan, G.T. Rd. Khadina More, P.O.&P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly Pin-712101/ITO Wd-2(3), Aayakar Bhawan Kachari Road, Court Compound, P.O.&P.S. Burdwan, Dist. Purba Barddhaman-713101/ITO Wd-47(4)/45(1), 3, Govt. Place, 1 st Fl. Kolkata/ITO Wd-35(1), 110, Shantipally, 7 th Fl. E.M. Bypass, Kolkata/ ITO Wd-22(4), 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata/ITO Wed-36(4), Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-107/ACIT, Cir-26(2), Aaykar Bhawan, Dakshin, 2 nd Fl. 2, Gariahat Road (South), Kolkata-68/ITO Wd-35(1), 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-107/ACIT, Circle-34, Aayakar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shantipally, 4 th Fl, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-35(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-35(1), Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 9 th Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-31(1), Kolkata/ITO Wd-3(3), Nr. Subash Park, South Lake Road, Puruliai-723101/ITO Wd-34(4)/36(2) Poorva 110, Shantipally, 7-8 th Fl, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-50(3), Manicktala Civic Center, Uttarapan Complex, Kolkata-54/ ITO Wd-63(1), Bamboovila, 9 th Floor, 169 AJC Bose Road, Kolkata-20/ITO Wd-47(4) /48(4), 33, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata-01/ITO Wd-35(2), Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-1(2)/Wd-4(4), P-7, Chowringhee Sq. Aayakar Bhawana, Kolkata-69 /ITO Wd-36(3), Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-46(1), 3, Govt. Place, Kolkata-001/ITO Wd-22(4), 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, Kolkata-16/ITO Wd-45(1), 3, Govt. Place, Kolkata-001/ITO Wd-35(2), Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-48(4)-ITO Wd-47(3), 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkta- 001/ITO Wd-2(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Hoooghly, G.T. Road, Khadina More, P.O.7P.S. Chinsurah, Dist. Hooghly-712101/ITO Wd-34(2), Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-62(2), Kolkata/ITO Wd-22(4)-, 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 4 th Fl, Kolkata-16/ITO Wd-46(1), 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata-01/ITO Wd-34(4)-34(2), 110, Shantipally, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-34(2), 10, Middleton Row Kolkata-001/ITO Wd-45(1),3, Govt. Place, Kolkata-001/ITO Wd-35(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Poorva, 110, Shantipally, Kolkata-107/ITO Wd-63(3), 169, AJC Bose Road, Kolkatka-14, ITO Wd-2(2), Aayakar Bhawa, Matigara, Sisliguri-734010

3. & ( / Concerned CIT

4. (- / CIT (A)

5. ) ,,&,  & / DR, ITAT, Kolkata

6. . / Guard file. By order/ , /True Copy/  &,