ITAT Delhi allows LTCG exemption under section 10(38) despite SEBI interim order on bogus transactions (38)

ITAT Delhi held in favor of the assessee regarding LTCG exemption under section 10(38) and deletion of addition under section 68. The AO denied exemption claiming bogus LTCG based on SEBI interim order and investigation report, treating it as unexplained cash credit. However, the Tribunal found the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence proving genuine transactions through banking channels, demat account, and stock exchange with STT paid. The AO relied solely on revoked SEBI interim order without proper investigation or allowing cross-examination rights. The Tribunal directed AO to accept LTCG and allow section 10(38) exemption.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition based on SEBI rules and regulations.
2. Applicability of ITAT Mumbai's decision on the present case.
3. Addition based on suspicion and the role of brokers.
4. Appraisal of share price increase and financial analysis.

Summary:

Issue 1: Deletion of Addition Based on SEBI Rules and Regulations
The revenue argued that the CIT(A)-14, New Delhi erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,93,06,611/- by not applying the SEBI rules and penal provisions appropriately. The AO had relied on the SEBI report and data to substantiate his claim. The Tribunal found that the AO's reliance on the SEBI interim orders was misplaced as these orders were later revoked by SEBI. The SEBI's final order dated 20.09.2017 did not find any adverse evidence against the assessee, thereby exonerating them from any wrongdoing.

Issue 2: Applicability of ITAT Mumbai's Decision
The revenue contended that the CIT(A)-14, New Delhi wrongly relied on a decision by the ITAT Mumbai, which was not applicable to the present case involving the scrip M/s Radford. The Tribunal noted that the same AO had assessed the brother of the assessee, who also claimed LTCG on the sale of Radford shares. The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the brother, citing the revocation of SEBI's interim orders and lack of adverse findings.

Issue 3: Addition Based on Suspicion and Role of Brokers
The revenue claimed that the addition was made on mere suspicion and that the AO had given sufficient opportunities for natural justice to the assessee. The Tribunal observed that the AO had heavily relied on the modus operandi of some brokers as described in the SEBI interim orders. However, these orders were later revoked, and no specific statements or evidence were presented to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO did not conduct independent inquiries or verifications, which is contrary to section 142(1) of the Act.

Issue 4: Appraisal of Share Price Increase and Financial Analysis
The revenue argued that the CIT(A)-14, New Delhi failed to consider the significant increase in the share price and the detailed financial analysis done by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the mere increase in share prices, without evidence of the assessee's involvement in any wrongdoing, cannot be the basis for denying the claim. The SEBI had exonerated the assessee, and the revenue did not provide any material evidence to prove otherwise. The Tribunal concluded that the addition was made on surmises and conjectures.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 5,93,06,611/-, finding that the AO's reliance on interim SEBI orders, which were later revoked, was misplaced. The Tribunal also noted the lack of independent inquiry and material evidence against the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

---