Assessee wins on Section 56(2)(x) flat sales and Section 10(38) bogus capital loss claims

ITAT Kolkata held in favor of the assessee on two grounds. First, regarding addition under Section 56(2)(x) for flat sales, the tribunal found the difference between assessee's value and fair market value under Section 50C was within 10% range, making the provision inapplicable. Second, concerning bogus short-term capital loss on equity shares, the tribunal allowed the claim under Section 10(38) as the AO relied solely on unrelated third-party statements without conducting independent investigation, and no incriminating materials were found against the assessee.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Confirmation of addition on account of difference between the value taken by the assessee and the fair market value (FMV) u/s 50C of the Act.
2. Confirmation of addition by disallowing the short-term capital loss on the sale of equity shares.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Confirmation of Addition u/s 50C of the Act

The assessee sold two flats for an aggregate consideration of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-, leading to an addition of Rs. 3,26,37,314/- to the income. The appellate authority upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. However, the tribunal found that the value adopted by the assessee and the FMV of the flats u/s 50C is within the range of ±10%, making the provisions of Section 56(2)(x) of the Act inapplicable. The tribunal allowed Ground Nos. 2 to 4, supporting the assessee's case with decisions from coordinate benches in similar cases.

Issue 2: Disallowance of Short-Term Capital Loss on Sale of Equity Shares

The assessee incurred a loss of Rs. 3,19,65,849/- on the sale of shares, which was adjusted against long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer disallowed the loss, treating it as bogus based on the modus operandi in stock market scams involving penny stocks. The appellate authority confirmed this decision, citing the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj & Ors.

The assessee argued that all necessary documents were furnished, and no independent verification was conducted by the Assessing Officer, who relied solely on the investigation wing's report and SEBI's list of manipulated shares. The tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct specific enquiries or issue notices to corroborate the allegations. The tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof shifted to the revenue once the assessee provided sufficient evidence.

The tribunal referenced several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries CCE and the Hon'ble High Court's decision in PCIT vs. Dipansu Mahapatra, which supported the assessee's position. The tribunal concluded that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or respond to adverse evidence.

The tribunal distinguished the facts of the case from the decision in PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj & Ors., noting that the transactions were conducted on a recognized stock exchange with proper documentation. The tribunal allowed Ground Nos. 5 to 9, directing the deletion of the disallowed loss.

Conclusion:

The appeal of the assessee was allowed, with the tribunal directing the deletion of the additions made by the Assessing Officer under both issues. The tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and conducting independent verifications before disallowing claims.

---