G Narendar Chordia Chennai v. Ito Ncw 5 2 Chennai

In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Smc Bench Chennai Before Shri Abraham P George Accountant M Ember I T A No 1819 Mds 2017 Assessment Year 2012 2013 G Narendar Chordia Flat No 3 J Door No 76 Osian Heights Basin Bridge Road Old Washermanpet Chennai 600 021 Pan Aajpg 2700 P Vs The Income Tax Officer Ncw 5 2 Chennai 600 006 I T A No 1820 Mds 2017 Assessment Year 2012 2013 Hatimal Chordia Flat No 3 I Door No 76 Osian Heights Basin Bridge Road Old Washermanpet Chennai 600 021 Pan Aahph 2267 H Vs The Income Tax Officer Ncw 4 4 Chennai 600 006 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri H C Khincha Deepa K C A Respondent By Shri B Sagadevan Irs Jcit Date Of Hearing 14 12 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 21 12 2017 Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 2 O R D E R These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessees Who Are B Rothers Directed Against Orders Dated 30 06 2017 Of Ld Com Missioner Of Income Tax Appeals 5 Chennai 2 Grounds Taken By Both The Assessees Are Similar And Assails The Reopening Done For The Impugned Assessment Year As Well As Merits Of The Additions Done Under The Head Incom E From Other Sources 3 Facts Apropos Are That Assessee Shri G Narendar C Hordia Working As Plant Head Manager Operation In Medopha Rm And Assessee Shri Hastimal Chordia Having Income Fro M Salary And Car Lease Had Filed Returns For The Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Income Of E 4 67 380 And E 9 35 700 Respectively Such Returns Were Processed U S 143 1 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 In Short The Act Ld Assessing Officer Received Information From Ddit Investigation Unit 1 Cru Chennai That Assessee S Were Beneficiaries Of Certain Transactions Done Through One Mr Praka Sh Kumar Jojodia Promoter Of M S Quest Financial Services Limited A Nd M S Kwality Credit And Leasing Limited Kolkata Which Resulted In Bogus Long Term Capital Gains To Various Persons Including T He Assessees Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 3 Assessee Shri G Narendar Chordia Had Claimed Lon G Term Capital Gains Of E 23 97 500 And Assessee Shri Hastimal Chordia Had Claimed Long Term Capital Gains Of E 23 97 000 Bot H Arising Sale Of Equity Shares As Exempt U S 10 38 Of The Act I Nformation Regarding These Transactions Of Which Shri Prakas H Kumar Jojodia Was One Of The Principal Players Came To The Know Ledge Of Revenue When He Was Subjected To A Search Operation By The Revenue Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Was The Managing Director Of M S Quest Financial Services Ltd Revenue It Seems Was Havin G With Them A Statement Recorded From Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Which Admitted Of Transactions Undertaken For Providing Bogus Lo Ng Term Capital Gains On Commission Basis Through Private Limi Ted Shell Companies Owned Or Controlled By Him Or In Other Words Wh At Are Known As Transactions Of Penny Stock Companies 4 Notice U S 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assesse Es On 23 02 2015 And 13 02 2015 Respectively Assessees Sought Reasons For The Reopening And Such Reasons Were Furnished To The Assessees Reasons Interalia Mentioned About The Statement Gi Ven By Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia During The Course Of Re Ass Essment Proceedings Ld Assessing Officer Put The Assessee S On Notice On Why The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains Should Not Be Disallowed And Why Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 4 Such Amounts Should Not Be Assessed As Income From Other Sources As Per The Ld Assessing Officer Modus Operandi Wa S To Buy Unlisted Shares Of Private Limited Company At A Very Low Boo K Value In Cash Which Company At A Later Stage Got Amalgamated Wit H A Listed Penny Stock Company With A High Court Approval For Such Scheme For Amalgamation As Per The Ld Assessing Officer Pri Ces Of The Shares Of The Penny Stock Companies Were Manipulated To 20 To 25 Times So That Investors Made Bogus Long Term Capital Gains On Sa Le Of Its Shares Ld Assessing Officer Noted That Shri Prakash Kumar Jo Jodia Had Admitted Floating A Number Of Companies Through Which Tran Sactions In Cash Cheques And Rtgs Credits Were Carried Out And He Ha D Also Offered A Sum Of E 1 00 00 000 As Income Earned For Giving A Ccommodation Entries To Various Parties Like Assessees 5 When Queried On The Above Reply Of The Assessees Were That They Had Purchased Three Hundred Equity Shares Each Of One M S Reward Agencies Private Limited Through Off Market Deal By Paying E 500 Per Share To One M S Sanklap Vincome P L Td As Per The Assessees Such Equity Shares Were Transferred In Th Eir Names By M S Reward Agencies Private Limited As Early As 25th Ja Nuary 2011 Contention Of The Assessees Were That M S Reward A Gencies Private Limited Was Later Converted As A Public Limited C Ompany And Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 5 Thereafter Amalgamated With One M S Quest Financia L Services Limited Which Had The Approval Of Honble Calcutta High Co Urt Through Its Order Dated 25 Th August 2011 As Per The Assessee Through This Amalgamation Scheme Sanctioned By Honble Calcutta High Court For One Equity Share In M S Reward Agencies Private Li Mited Hundred Equity Shares Of M S Quest Financial Services Limi Ted Were Allotted Contention Of The Assessees Was That Thirty Thousan D Equity Shares Each Were Allotted To Them In M S Quest Financia L Services Limited And These Were Dematted And Sold In Kolkata Stock E Xchange Through One M S K Prasad Co As Per The Assessees M S Quest Financial Services Limited Being A Listed Company Long Term Capital Gains Arising To Them On Sale Of Shares Of The Said Company Thr Ough Kolkata Stock Exchange Was Exempt U S 10 38 Of The Act Assesse E Also Pointed Out That The Sale Transaction Were Carried Out Thr Ough Banking Channels 6 However Ld Assessing Officer Did Not Accept The R Eply Given By The Assessee According To Him Joint Commissio Ner Of Income Tax In A Proceeding U S 144 A Of The Act Had Rejected Si Milar Contentions Of The Assessee According To Him The Statement Reco Rded From Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Who Was A Promoter And Dire Ctor Of M S Quest Financial Services Limited Clearly Proved Th At He Had Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 6 Provided Accommodation Entries To Many Persons Incl Uding Assessees Ld Assessing Officer Also Noted That Assessees Cou Ld Not Furnish Any Evidence As To How They Came To Know About M S Rew Ard Agencies P Ltd For Purchasing Their Shares As Per The Ld Ass Essing Officer These Were Isolated Transactions Done By The Assessee Wit H The M S Sanklap Vibcom P Ltd Kolkata Who Were Seller Of The Sha Res And Assessee Had No Means Of Knowing Such Company Or Buying Thei R Shares Ld Assessing Officer Refused To Take Into Consideratio N An Affidavit Dated 22 02 2015 Of Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Produce D By The Assessee Wherein He Retracted From His Earlier Statement Giv En To The Revenue And Affirmed That Purchase And Sale Of Shares Were Genuine Ld Assessing Officer Observed As Under At Paras 9 2 T O 9 8 Of His Order 9 2 The Assesseee Has Stated That He Does Not Kno W Any Of The Office Bearers Either The Old Or The New Company And That He Is Not Related To Any Office Bearers Of Any Of The Company Hence Enemity Canno T Be Said To Be A Cause For Mentioning The Name Of Th E Assessee In The List Of The Beneficiary 9 2 The Assessee Has Stated That He Does Not Know Mr Prakash Jajodia Letter Were Sent By This Offic E To M S Sanklap Vincom P Ltd And K Prasad And Co But No Reply Was Received Till The Date Of Passing Assessment Order And It Is Not Known How He Obtaine D The Affidavit Of Mr Prakash Jajodia 9 3 On Verification Of The Affidavit It Is Found That The Details Mentioned In The Serial Number 6 7 8 9 10 11 Of The Affidavit Are False 9 4 In The Sworn Statement Recorded From Mr Prakash Jajodia On 07 08 2014 It Is Mentioned As Under Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 7 9 5 In The Sworn Statement Recorded From Mr Prakash Jajodia On 26 08 2014 It Is Mentioned As Under I Have Gone Through The Above Statement And Confirm That The Same Has Seen And Exactly 9 6 A Brief Of The Client Scrip Of Shri Prakash Jaj Odia Is Reproduced Wherein Though The Member Broker Is K Prasad Co Through Whom The Assessee Has Sold The Shares Of Quest Financial Services Ltd It Also Ha S Various Counter Party Member Against Each Transactions Further It Is Seen From The Internet In The Websites Of Http Www Guickcompany Inlcompany And Corporatedlr Com Cornpanv That One Of The Directors Of The Converted Company Namely Reward Agencies Ltd Is Shri Rajesh Kurmi Who Happens To Be One Of The Dummy Directors Of Jamakarchi Compannies Of Shri Prakash Jajodia And A S Per His Sworn Statement Recorded By The Investigati On Wing Shri Rajesh Kurmi Is 10 Th Pass And Is An Employee Of Shri Prakash Jajodia He Also Said I D O All Kinds Of Official Work In The Office Of Shri Prakas H Jajodia As Assigned By Him For Which 1 Am Getting Salary Of Rs 20000 Pm Various Kinds Of Works Like Collecting And Delivering Cash From Various Parties Depositing And Withdrawing Cash From Various Accoun Ts These Companies Are Not Doing Any Real Work As These Companies Are Paper Companies And Doing Work Of Jamakarchi Accommodation Entries Hence It Is Clear That The Assessee Has Been Provided Bogus Lon G Term Capital Gain Through Accommodation Entries 9 6 1 Another Point To Be Noted Is That Though The Assessee In His Sworn Statement First Said No When Asked If Any Other Member Of His Family Have Also Invested In The Same Company And Made Profit Out Of It At The Same Time After The Assessee Was Shown The List Of The Client In Chenna I To Whom Bogus Long Term Capital Was Provided Which Also Had Many Of His Family Members The Assessee Said That Only He Had Purchased The Shares And He Didnt Know If Any Of H Is Family Members Had Purchased 9 7 It Can Be Seen From The Client Statement Of Shr I Prakash Jajodia That Not Only The Assessee But The Following Members Of H I S Fam I Ly Have Also Invested In Shares Which Was Eventually Amalagamated To Quest F I Nancial Services Ltd Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 8 Sl No Name Amount Relation To The Assessee 1 Hastimal Chordia 2397000 Assessee 2 G Narendra Chordia 2399000 Brother 3 Nirmala Kumari Chordia 2394000 Mother 4 Shilpa Jain 2397000 Wife Of His Brother G Narendra Chordia 5 Seema Jain 2397000 Wife Of The Assessee 9 8 It Is Concluded That It Is Not A Single Genuine Transaction But The Assessee Apart From His Family Members Has Been One Of The Beneficiaries Who Was Provided Bogus Long Term Capital Gains Through Private Limited Shell Companies Listed Penny Stock Companies He Disbelieved The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gain S And Made An Addition Of The Equivalent Amount Under The Head In Come From Other Sources For Both The Assessees 7 Aggrieved The Assessees Moved In Appeal Before The Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Apart From As Sailing The Validity Of The Reopening Done For The Impugned Ass Essment Year Assessees Also Challenged The Merits Of The Additio N Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Held The Reope Ning To Be Valid According To Him Information Received From Invest Igation Wing Of The Department Kolkata Was Good Enough Reason For Reop Ening The Assessment In So Far As Merits Were Concerned L D Commissioner Of Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 9 Income Tax Appeals Held That Purchase Of The Shar Es Were Initially Done Through Off Market Deals In Cash And The Sell Ing Rates Were Artificially Hiked According To Him Financials Of M S Quest Financial Services Ltd Did Not Justify The Prices At Which Its Shares Were Sold Further According To The Ld Commissioner Of Incom E Tax Appeals Additions Made By The Ld Assessing Officer Were N Ot Solely Based On The Statements Recorded From Shri Prakash Kumar Jo Jodia But For Other Reasons As Well Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Held That Ld Assessing Officer Was Justified In Co Nsidering The Long Term Capital Gains As Bogus And In Making The Addi Tions U S 68 Of The Act 8 Now Before Me Ld Authorised Representative Strong Ly Assailing The Reopening Done For The Impugned Asses Sment Year Submitted That Reasons Given By Ld Assessing Offic Er For Such Reopening Stated That Key Person Shri Prakash Ku Mar Jojodia Who Was The Promoter Of M S Quest Financial Services L Imited And M S Kwality Credit And Leasing Limited Kolkata Admitt Ed His Involvement In Providing Bogus Long Term Capital Gains To Vari Ous Persons On Commission Basis As Per The Ld Authorised Repres Entative This Could Not Be Stated As A Reason According To Him Thoug H Sufficiency Of The Reason Could Not Be Questioned Its Relevancy Coul D Be Looked Into Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 10 As Per The Ld Authorised Representative One Of Th E Essential Conditions Required For Reopening Of An Assessment As Set Out In Section 147 Of The Act Was Not Satisfied 9 Arguing On The Merits Of The Case Ld Authorised Representative Submitted That Purchase Of Shares Of M S Reward Agencies P Ltd Were Proved Through Share Certifica Tes Which Reflected Transfer Of These Shares From M S Sanklap Vincom P Ltd To The Assessees According To Him Amalgamation Of M S R Eward Agencies P Ltd With M S Quest Financial Service Ltd Coul D Not Be Questioned Since It Had The Approval Of The Honble Calcutta High Court As For The Sale Of The Shares In M S Quest Financial Serv Ice Ltd Capital Gains Arising From Which Was Claimed As Exempt Contentio N Of The Ld Authorised Representative Was That Such Sale Was Do Ne Through Kolkatta Stock Exchange By A Recognized Stock Broke R And Payments Received Through Banking Channels According To Hi M Undue Reliance Was Placed By The Revenue On A Statement Recorded F Rom Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Who Was Never Known To The As Sessee According To Him Assessee Had Never Purchased Shar Es From Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia As Per The Ld Authorised Re Presentative The So Called Statement Recorded From Shri Prakash Kum Ar Jojodia Was Never Put To The Assessee Further As Per The Ld Authorised Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 11 Representative Assessee Was Never Given An Opportu Nity To Cross Examine The Said Person Ld Authorised Representa Tive Submitted That Assessee Had Filed An Affidavit Of Shri Pra Kash Kumar Jojodia Retracting His Earlier Statements Contention Of L D Authorised Representative Was That Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Had Affirmed The Transactions Of Shares Of M S Quest Financial Serv Ices Ltd As Genuine According To Him Similar Transactions Where Capita L Gains Were Considered As Bogus Had Come Up Before Bangalore B Ench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Vimala Devi Chhajer And Others Vs Dcit Ita Nos 513 To 518 Bang 2010 519 To 526 Bang 2010 946 To 949 955 956 970 Bang 2010 1000 To 1005 Bang 2010 And 1071 Bang 2010 Vide Order Dated 23 03 2011 And The Tribunal Had Held The Capital Gains Claimed To Be Not Bogus Reliance Was Also Placed On The Decision Of Kolkata Bench Of The Tribunal In The Ca Se Of Manish Kumar Baid And Mahendra Kumar Baid Vs Aict Ita Nos 123 6 1237 Kol 2017 Dated 18 08 2017 And That Of Mumbai Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Ito Vs Arvind Kumar Jain Ita No 4862 Mum 2014 Dated 18 09 2017 As Per The Ld Authorised Representative In The Case Decided By Kolkata Bench Also The Company In Which Concerned Assessee Had Invested Was Merge D With Another Listed Company And The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains Was On Sale Of Equity Shares Of Such Listed Company As Per Th E Ld Authorised Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 12 Representative Kolkata Bench Had Held That Transa Ctions Relating To The Long Term Capital Gains Could Not Be Disbelieve D Since The Sale Of The Shares Were Effected Through Registered Stock Brokers Further As Per The Ld Authorised Representative Equity Sh Ares Of M S Quest Financial Service Ltd Held By The Assessee Were Dem Aterialized Or Dematted And Such Dematting Clearly Proved The Hol Ding Of Shares By The Assessee In The Said Company Thus According T O Him Lower Authorities Fell In Error In Disbelieving The Long Term Capital Gains And Making An Addition U S 68 Of The Act For The Amount S Which Were Received Through A Recognized Stock Exchange And S Ource Of Which Was Clearly Explained 10 Per Contra Ld Departmental Representative Strong Ly Supporting The Orders Of The Lower Authorities Sub Mitted That Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Was The Promoter Of M S Qu Est Financial Services Ltd According To Him Assessees Were Men Tioned In The Statement Recorded From The Said Person As One Amo Ng Many To Whom He Had Provided Accommodation Entries As Pe R The Ld Departmental Representative Share Price Of M S Qu Est Financial Service Ltd Were Artificially Jacked Up Without Any Credible Financials For The Said Company According To Him Assessee Could Not Say He Was Not Aware Of The Statement Given By Shri Prak Ash Kumar Jojodia Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 13 Since Assessee Had Filed An Affidavit From The Ver Y Same Person Retracting What He Earlier Said According To Him Additions Were Rightly Made Disbelieving The Series Of Transactio Ns Which Were Manufactured Only For Illegal Evasion Of Tax 11 On The Aspect Of Reopening The Contention Of The L D Departmental Representative Was That Reasons Clea Rly Indicated Escapement Of Income From Assessment 12 I Have Considered The Rival Contentions And Perused The Orders Of The Authorities Below First Taking Up Th E Question Whether The Reopening Was Valid Or Not Admittedly The Ori Ginal Returns Were Only Subjected To A Processing U S 143 1 Of The Ac T When The Original Returns Were Only Processed U S 143 1 Of The Act I Cannot Say That An Assessment Was Been Done After Application Of Mind By The Ld Assessing Officer Such Processing In My Opinion I S A Ministerial Act In Taking This View I Am Fortified By The Judgme Nt Of Apex Court In The Case Of Acit Vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P Ltd 291 It R 500 Reasons Recorded By The Ld Assessing Officer For R Eopening The Assessment Has Been Placed Before Me At Paper Book Page No 81 And This Reads As Under This Office Is In Receipt Of Information That Ther E Was A Search Operation In The Case Of Mls Quest Financial Services And Kwality Credit And Leasing Limited Ke Y Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 14 Person Mr Prakash Jajodia Revealed The Fact That H E And His Group Involved In Providing Bogus Long Term Cap Ital Gains To Various Persons On Commission Basis Throug H A Number Of Private Limited Shell Companies Owned Or Controlled By Him As Well As Some Listed Penny Stoc K Companies Sri Hastimal Chordia Is One Of The Beneficiaries The Transaction Amount During The Pe Riod Is Rs 23 97 000 The Whole Of Which Is Bogus Therefore I Have Reason To Believe That Income Chargeable To Tax Relevant For The A Y 2012 13 Has Escaped Assessment Due To Failure On The Part Of Assessee To Disclose Fully And Truly All Material F Acts Relevant For The Purpose Of Assessment Reasons Are Similar For Both The Assessee Conside Ring The Fact That Original Return Was Subject Only To A Processing U S 143 1 Of The Act I Am Of The Opinion That Reason Above Given Was Re Levant Enough For Resorting To A Reopening Presence Of A Relevant Reason Is Enough In Such Cases And It Is Not Necessary That Escapement Of Income Has To Be Established Rules For Reopening Are Much More L Iberal Where Original Returns Are Only Subject To Processing U S 143 1 Of The Act I Therefore Uphold The Order Of Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals In So Far As The Reopening Of Assessment Is Concerned 13 Coming To The Merits Of The Additions What I Find Is That Lower Authorities Had Relied On A Statement From On E Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Who Was The Promoter And Director Of M S Reward Agencies Pvt Ltd Which Was Amalgamated With M S Q Uest Financial Service Ltd Pursuant To A Scheme Sanctioned By Ho Nble Calcutta Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 15 High Court Once The Scheme Is Sanctioned By Honb Le Calcutta High Court I Cannot Consider The Amalgamation As A Sha M One Ratio Of Allotment Of Shares In M S Quest Financial Service Ltd Which Was 1 100 Viz Hundred Shares Of M S Quest Financial S Ervice Ltd For One Share Of M S Reward Agencies Pvt Ltd This Ratio Was As Per The Approved Scheme This Is Clearly Mentioned At Para 3 To Schedule A Of The Said Scheme Which Read As Under A The Transferee Company Shall Without Further Act Deed Shall Allot To Every Share Holders Of M S Dristi Buppliers Limited 90 Ninety Equity Share Of Rs 10 Each Credited Is Fully Paid Up For 1 One Equity S Hares Of Rs 10 Each Fully Paid Up And Held By Such Share Holders In M S Drisu Suppliers Limited And Shall Allot To Every Share Holder Of M S Pran Eevan Distributors Limite D 90 Ninety Equity Shares Of Rs 10 Each Credited As Fully Pad Up For One Equity Shares Of 10 Each Fully Paid Up And Held By Such Share Holders In M S Prun Eevan Dist Ributors Limited And Shall Allot To Every Share Holders Of M 5 Reward Agencies Limited 100 Hundred Equity Share Of Rs 10 L Each Credited As Fully Paid Up For 1 One Equity Shares Of Rs 10 Each Fully Paid Up And Held By Such Share Holders In Ms Reward Agencies Limited Though Ld Assessing Office Considered The Prices Of Shares Of M S Quest Financial Service Ltd To Have Been Jacked U P Artificially Nothing Is Available On Record Which Could Show W Hat Were The Financials Of M S Quest Financial Service Ltd Ld Assessing Officer Ought To Have Analysised The Financials Of The Said Company Before Coming To A Conclusion That Such Financials Were No T At All In Rhyme With The Share Prices It May Be True That Assesse E Had Acquired Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 16 Original Shares In M S Reward Agencies P Ltd In Off Market Transactions By Paying Cash However Backside Of The Share Certificates Of M S Reward Agencies P Ltd Placed At Paper Book Pages 110 111 112 113 114 115 Clearly Show That Th E Equity Shares Were Transferred To The Assessee On 25 01 2011 Or Iginal Owner Of These Shares Were One M S Dristi Suppliers Privat E Limited And They Had Transferred Such Shares To M S Sanklap Vincom Private Limited On 25 10 2010 The Seller Of The Shares To The Asse Ssee Was M S Sanklap Vincom Private Limited What Relation Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Had With M S Sanklap Vincom Private Limite D Is Not Available On Record Assessees Have Mainly Relied On The Ord Ers Of The Bangalore Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Vimala Devi Chhajer And Others Supra That Of Kolkata Bench Of The Tr Ibunal In The Case Of Manish Kumar Baid Supra And That Of Mumbai Bench Of The Tribunal In The Case Of Arvind Kumar Jain Supra However In All These Cases Relied On By The Assessee What I Find Is That Stat Ement Relied On By The Revenue For Disbelieving Long Term Capital Gain S Did Not Mention The Names Of The Concerned Assessees Clearly As Ag Ainst This The Case Of The Revenue Here Is That Assessees Name Were Me Ntioned By Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia In The Statement Recorded Fro M Him Thus The Statement Of Shri Praksh Kumar Jojodia Was The Cr Ucial Link For Disbelieving The Long Term Capital Gains Claimed By The Assessee Rules Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 17 Of Nature Justice In My Opinion Required Such Stat Ement To Be Given To The Assessee Neither Was It Given Nor Assessee G Iven An Opportunity To Cross Examine Shri Prakash Kumar J Ojodia No Doubt Assessee Had Filed An Affidavit From Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Retracting His Earlier Statement This Will Not I N My Opinion Absolve The Revenue From Its Duty To Place Before The Asses See The Statement Of Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia Relied On By Them Fo R Disbelieving The Long Term Capital Gains Claimed By The Assessee Th E Entire Addition Emanated From The Statement Given Shri Prakash Kum Ar Jojodia And A Finding That Prices Of The Shares Of M S Quest Fin Ancial Service Ltd Were Artificially Jacked Up In My Opinion Sale Of The Shares Having Been Done Recognized Stock Exchange And Sale Consi Deration Having Been Received Through Banking Channels The Sale As Such Ought Not Have Been Disbelieved Unless There Were Strong Rea Sons For Disbelieving The Claim In The Circumstances I Am Of The Opinion That The Issue Requires A Fresh Look By The Ld Assessin G Officer Ld Assessing Officer Has To Give A Copy Of The Stateme Nt Of Shri Prakash Kumar Jojodia To The Assessee So That They Can Plac E Their Objections Ld Assessing Officer Has To Consider The Merits Of The Objections If Any Filed By The Assessee And If Required The Assesse Es Shall Be Given An Opportunity To Cross Examine Shri Prakash Kumar Jo Jodia Ld Assessing Officer Also Needs To Verify The Financia Ls Of M S Quest Ita Nos 1819 1820 Mds 2017 18 Financial Services Ltd Before Coming To A Conclusio N That Its Share Prices Were Jacked Up Needless To Mention If The Name Of The Assessees Are Not Appearing In The Statement Of Shr I Prakash Kumar Jojodia Transactions Giving Rise To The Long Term Capital Gains Cannot Be Disbelieved Unless There Are Other Very Stron G Reasons For Doing So With These Directions I Set Aside The Order S Of The Lower Authorities And Remit The Issue Back To The File O F The Ld Assessing Officer For Consideration Afresh In Accordance With Law 14 In The Result Appeals Of The Assessee Are Partly Allowed For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced On Thursday The 21st Day Of December 2017 At Chennai Sd Abraham P George Accountant Member Chennai Dated 21st December 2017 Kv Copy To 1 Appellant 3 Cit A 5 0 Dr 2 Respondent 4 Cit 6 12 Gf