Tribunal grants exemption for capital gain, rejects unexplained expenditure, citing lack of evidence.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, granting the exemption under Section 10(38) for long-term capital gain from the sale of shares and deleting the addition under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and Commissioner of Income Tax were based on mere suspicion and conjecture without substantial evidence. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the additions and dismissed the challenge to the reopening of the assessment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of exemption claimed under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act for long-term capital gain from the sale of shares.
2. Addition of 3% of the transaction amount as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Exemption under Section 10(38):

The primary issue in this appeal was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was justified in confirming the Assessing Officer's (AO) action in denying the exemption claimed under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act regarding long-term capital gain from the sale of shares of Radford Global Ltd. The AO had reopened the assessment under Section 147 based on an investigation report from the Kolkata Income Tax Department, which labeled the shares as penny stocks and the transactions as bogus.

The assessee provided substantial documentary evidence, including purchase bills, payment receipts, newspaper advertisements, bank statements, share certificates, demat statements, balance sheets, sales bills, broker confirmations, and rate publication charts, to support the genuineness of the transactions. The AO, however, relied on the investigation report without conducting independent verification or linking the assessee to the alleged bogus transactions.

The Tribunal found that the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee was genuine and unchallenged by the revenue. The transactions were conducted through registered brokers at prevailing market prices, and payments were received via account payee cheques subjected to Securities Transaction Tax (STT).

The Tribunal noted that the revenue did not prove any direct involvement of the assessee in price manipulation or connivance with entry operators. The SEBI investigation also did not implicate the assessee or the broker in artificial price rigging, and SEBI's final order acquitted the entities involved.

The Tribunal held that merely because a scrip is identified as a penny stock does not mean all transactions in that scrip are bogus. The AO's reliance on the investigation report without independent verification was insufficient to deny the exemption. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was based on mere suspicion and conjecture without cogent evidence.

2. Addition under Section 69C:

The interconnected issue was whether the CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of 3% of the transaction amount as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The AO had added this amount as estimated commission for arranging the alleged bogus transaction.

The Tribunal found that the revenue did not provide any evidence to support the addition. The assessee's transactions were documented, and there was no proof of any unexplained expenditure. The Tribunal emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal evidence.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the entire addition was made based on mere surmise, suspicion, and conjecture without any substantial evidence. The AO failed to conduct independent verification and relied solely on the investigation report. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, granting the exemption under Section 10(38) and deleting the addition under Section 69C.

Order:

The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, with the Tribunal directing the deletion of the additions made by the AO and CIT(A). The reopening of the assessment was not challenged by the assessee and was dismissed as not pressed. The order was pronounced on 30/01/2023.

---