2024 (11) TMI 1488 - AT - Income Tax

Appellate authority deletions affirmed; AO additions under s.68 rejected and s.10(38) exemption upheld for penny-stock gains

ITAT upheld the appellate authority's deletions, rejecting the AO's additions under s.68 and disallowance of exemption under s.10(38). The tribunal found ... Addition u/s 68 - exemption u/s 10(38) denied - bogus transaction of shares - AO noticed that the Investigation Wing of Kolkata has reported that the bogus capital gains were generated by rigging the price of shares of certain companies, which were named as “penny stocks” - HELD THAT:- It is pertinent to note that the purchase of shares made in an earlier year has been accepted by the Revenue. The sale of shares has taken place in the on-line platform of the Stock Exchange and the sale consideration has been received through the stock broker in banking channels. Hence, in the facts of the case, the sale consideration cannot be considered to be unexplained cash credit in terms of sec. 68 of the Act. We notice that, in the instant case, the AO has not established that the assessee was involved in price rigging and further the AO did not find fault with any of the documents furnished by the assessee. Hence, the ratio laid down in the above said cases by the jurisdictional Hon’ble Bombay High Court shall apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO in respect of long term capital gains in the original assessment order and short term capital gains in the reassessment order. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the estimated addition of commission expenses. Accordingly, we confirm the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) on the three issues, viz., addition of sale value of M/s. Splash Media & Infra Ltd, and addition of commission expenses on estimated basis in the original assessment proceedings and addition of sale value of M/s. Comfort Intech Ltd., in the reassessment proceedings. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether capital gains arising from sale of shares identified as 'penny stocks' can be assessed as unexplained income under section 68 (or treated as bogus capital gains) on the basis of a generalized investigation report without linking the assessee specifically to price-rigging or accommodation entries. 2. Whether estimated commission expenses (assessed as unexplained expenditure) can be added when no specific evidence links the assessee to payment of such commission in the alleged rigging scheme. 3. Whether reopening of assessment under section 148 (reassessment) is valid where the alleged omitted transaction relates to sale of shares identified in an investigation report but no specific incriminating material against the assessee was produced. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Legality of treating share sale proceeds (penny stocks) as unexplained income / bogus capital gains Legal framework: 1. Principle that sums treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 require the AO to demonstrate that the source of the receipt is not satisfactorily explained by the assessee; AO must bring primary or specific material linking the receipt to unexplained/unaccounted source or sham transaction. 2. General investigative reports or findings against third parties do not by themselves constitute primary material to prove that a particular assessee participated in a rigging/accommodation scheme. Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished): 1. Followed jurisprudence that AO cannot rest solely on generalized investigation reports; further inquiries (into bank accounts, demat records, brokers, contemporaneous documentary evidence) are required to connect the assessee to the alleged scheme. The Court applied precedents holding that genuine documentary records of purchase, dematerialisation, sale and bank receipts rebut departmental suspicion where no specific contrary material is produced. Interpretation and reasoning: 1. The AO relied primarily on an Investigation Wing report describing a general modus operandi for generation of bogus gains in penny stocks. The AO did not produce material demonstrating that the assessee's transactions were executed in connivance with the operators or were part of manipulated trades. The AO did not disprove the assessee's documents. 2. The assessee produced records showing purchases made through recognised broker/exchange or by rights issue, dematerialisation, sale through stock exchange, and receipt of sale proceeds through banking channels; AO found no defect in those documents. The shares entered and exited the assessee's demat account. 3. In absence of any link between the assessee and the persons identified in the investigation, merely being a holder/trader in shares that were at some point subject to an investigation does not prove the gains were bogus or unexplained. The Tribunal emphasised that the investigation report is generalized and cannot substitute for specific evidence necessary to impugn the assessee's transactions. Ratio vs. Obiter: 1. Ratio: Where the assessee furnishes credible documentary evidence (stock exchange contract notes, demat entries, bank receipts) and AO fails to produce any material connecting the assessee to the alleged price-rigging or accommodation entries, the AO cannot treat sale proceeds as unexplained income under section 68 solely on the basis of a generalized investigation report. 2. Obiter: Observations summarising factual parallels with prior High Court decisions and commentary on SEBI not having enquired into the assessee's transactions are supportive but not essential to the core ratio. Conclusion: 1. Deletion of addition of sale consideration assessed as unexplained income is justified because AO failed to establish that the individual transactions were sham or that the assessee participated in price manipulation; documentary evidence presented by the assessee remained undisturbed. Issue 2 - Validity of estimated commission addition (unexplained expenditure) Legal framework: 1. Additions by way of estimated unexplained expenditure require a factual basis linking the expenditure to the impugned scheme or evidence showing payment/obligation; AO must not make speculative estimates without supporting material. Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished): 1. Followed principle that speculative estimation of commission as unexplained expenditure cannot stand where AO has not demonstrated any payment or nexus to the rigging scheme and where documentary evidence of regular brokerage/transactional flow exists. Interpretation and reasoning: 1. AO estimated commission without producing evidence that such commission was paid or that the assessee engaged intermediaries in the alleged accommodation scheme. The assessee's transactional records did not disclose any infirmity or unexplained outflow; AO did not controvert the paperwork. Ratio vs. Obiter: 1. Ratio: An estimated addition for commission cannot be sustained in the absence of evidentiary links or demonstrated irregular payments; speculative assessment is unsustainable where documentary evidence is unrebutted. Conclusion: 1. Deletion of estimated commission addition is confirmed because the AO failed to establish payment or nexus of such expenditure to any illicit scheme. Issue 3 - Validity of reopening assessment under section 148 in respect of omitted share sale Legal framework: 1. Reopening under section 148 requires formation of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment; that formation must be based on tangible material and, where challenged, is subject to judicial scrutiny. Precedent treatment (followed/distinguished): 1. The Tribunal treated the question of reopening as academic because it decided the substantive issues in favour of the assessee on merits. Prior authorities emphasising necessity for specific material before reopening were cited but the Tribunal did not adjudicate the reopening validity as a determinative issue. Interpretation and reasoning: 1. The AO relied on the Investigation Wing's report to reopen for an omitted share sale; however, since the substantive assessment of the sale proceeds on merits fails for lack of specific incriminating material, the legality of reopening becomes moot in the facts of the case. Ratio vs. Obiter: 1. Obiter/administrative: The Tribunal left the legal issue of reopening open and did not decide it because the merits disposed the matter in favour of the assessee; thus any observations on reopening were not essential to the decision. Conclusion: 1. Reopening validity was not decided and left open as academic, because the Tribunal disposed the substantive additions on merits in favour of the assessee. Cross-references 1. Issue 1 and Issue 2 are interlinked: both depend on whether AO adduced specific evidence linking the assessee to price-rigging or accommodation entries; failure on this front disposes both issues in favour of the assessee. 2. Issue 3 was rendered academic by conclusions under Issues 1 and 2; the Tribunal expressly left the reopening question open rather than deciding it. Final Disposition 1. Both departmental appeals dismissed; additions of sale consideration for the two specified penny stock transactions and the estimated commission expense deleted. The assessee's cross-objection on reopening left open as academic.