Appeal partially allowed for capital loss denial, remanded for re-examination.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The denial of short-term capital loss related to M/s Cressanda Solution Ltd. was upheld, while the issues related to Pearl Agriculture and Pearl Electronics were remanded to the AO for re-examination. The order stressed procedural fairness and the requirement for the assessee to substantiate claims with sufficient evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of short-term capital loss (STCL) of Rs. 36,95,007 on the sale of shares.
2. Allegation of sham transactions and accommodation entries.
3. Procedural fairness in the assessment process.
4. Examination of the financial status of companies involved.
5. Examination of the evidence provided by the assessee.
6. Reassessment of specific losses related to Pearl Agriculture and Pearl Electronics.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Short-Term Capital Loss (STCL) of Rs. 36,95,007 on the Sale of Shares:
The primary issue in this case is the denial of the STCL claimed by the assessee on the sale of shares amounting to Rs. 36,95,007. The AO disallowed this loss, considering the transactions as sham and part of a pre-mediated plan to create bogus loss. The assessee argued that the denial was arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.

2. Allegation of Sham Transactions and Accommodation Entries:
The AO's investigation revealed that the shares involved were from companies identified in the Directorate of Investigation's report as being used for providing accommodation entries. These companies, such as M/s Cressanda Solution Ltd., Pearl Agriculture Ltd., and Pearl Electronics Ltd., were found to be paper companies primarily involved in facilitating bogus LTCG/STCL entries. The modus operandi involved routing unaccounted money through the sale of shares to create tax-exempt LTCG or STCL.

3. Procedural Fairness in the Assessment Process:
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) upheld the denial without confronting the alleged information obtained from the Investigation Wing or providing a cross-examination of the parties whose statements were relied upon. The assessee argued that the order was based on speculation and generalized statements without supporting evidence.

4. Examination of the Financial Status of Companies Involved:
The AO examined the financial status of the companies involved and found that they had negligible profits or losses, indicating that they were not engaged in significant business activities. The AO concluded that these companies were conduits for providing accommodation entries, further supporting the view that the transactions were not genuine.

5. Examination of the Evidence Provided by the Assessee:
The assessee provided various documents, including bank statements, contract notes, and statements of account, to substantiate the transactions. However, the AO found that the assessee did not appear for personal deposition despite multiple summons, which led to the conclusion that the assessee had not discharged her onus to substantiate the claim.

6. Reassessment of Specific Losses Related to Pearl Agriculture and Pearl Electronics:
While the AO disallowed the entire STCL claimed, the Tribunal found that the AO had not specifically asked for reasons for the losses related to Pearl Agriculture and Pearl Electronics. The Tribunal set aside the issues of STCL of Rs. 6,35,361 and Rs. 6,69,907 related to these companies to the AO for re-examination. The AO was directed to call for reasons for the losses and supporting documentary evidence, and to decide the matter after giving the assessee a full opportunity to substantiate the claim.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The denial of STCL related to M/s Cressanda Solution Ltd. was upheld, while the issues related to Pearl Agriculture and Pearl Electronics were remanded to the AO for re-examination. The order emphasized the need for procedural fairness and the requirement for the assessee to substantiate the claims with adequate evidence. The order was pronounced on 06.01.2020.

---