Assessment reopening valid for penny stock transactions but additions under sections 68 and 69C deleted due to genuine investment proof

The ITAT Surat upheld the validity of assessment reopening based on information received from DDIT Investigation unit regarding penny stock transactions, finding the AO's reasons were not borrowed satisfaction but based on proper application of mind. However, the tribunal deleted the addition under section 68, following the Gujarat HC precedent in Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai case, as the assessee demonstrated genuine investment through proper documentation, banking channels, STT payment, and long-term holding period of seven years. Consequently, the related addition under section 69C for commission was also deleted.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reopening the assessment under section 147 by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Addition of Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) as unexplained cash credit.
3. Addition under section 69C on account of commission paid for bogus LTCG.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Reopening the Assessment:
The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment under section 147, arguing that there was no tangible material in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer (AO) to form a "reason to believe" that there was an escapement of income. The AO had received information from the Kolkata Investigation Directorate about the assessee's transactions in penny stocks, which were allegedly used to introduce unaccounted income. The AO recorded these reasons and obtained necessary approval before issuing the notice under section 148.

The Tribunal observed that the AO had credible information from the DDIT Investigation Wing, Kolkata, regarding the penny stock transactions. The AO verified this information with the records and recorded a prima facie reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Phul Chand Bajrang Lal, which upheld the reopening of assessments based on new, specific, and reliable information. The Tribunal concluded that the reopening was justified and legal, dismissing the additional grounds raised by the assessee.

2. Addition of LTCG as Unexplained Cash Credit:
The AO had added the LTCG claimed by the assessee as unexplained cash credit under section 68, arguing that the transactions in the penny stock, Global Capital Markets Ltd., were sham and used to introduce unaccounted income. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition, citing that the transactions were part of a tax fraud scam involving penny stocks.

The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee had held the shares for more than seven years, purchased through banking channels, and sold through recognized stock exchanges with STT paid. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided sufficient documentation, including contract notes, bank statements, and demat account statements, to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal distinguished the case from the Calcutta High Court's judgment in Swati Bajaj, noting that the assessee had not engaged in manipulative practices and had held the shares for a long period. The Tribunal relied on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Jagat Pravinbhai Sarabhai, which held that long-term investments in shares could not be treated as penny stock transactions. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO.

3. Addition under Section 69C:
The AO had made an addition under section 69C for commission allegedly paid for bogus LTCG. Since the Tribunal had deleted the addition of LTCG, it held that the addition under section 69C had no basis and deleted it as well.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, holding that the reopening of the assessment was valid but the additions made by the AO under sections 68 and 69C were not justified. The Tribunal's decision was based on the assessee's long-term holding of shares, the genuineness of the transactions, and the binding precedent set by the Gujarat High Court.

---