ITAT allows appeal, deletes section 68 addition for penny stock transactions lacking manipulation proof

ITAT Mumbai allowed the appeal concerning addition under section 68 for penny stock transactions. The AO denied exemption under section 10(38) for long-term capital gains, relying on a generalized investigation report from Income Tax Department Kolkata regarding share price manipulation. The Tribunal found the AO failed to prove the assessee's transactions were part of manipulated trades or that she connived with price riggers. The assessee's transactions occurred before SEBI's initial debarment order against the company promoters, which was later revoked. With proper demat account entries and no defects found in evidence, the Tribunal upheld CIT(A)'s deletion of additions for both sale consideration and estimated commission expenses.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from sale of shares of Pine Animation Ltd.
2. Denial of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Treatment of sale consideration as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.
4. Estimation of commission expenses as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from sale of shares of Pine Animation Ltd.:
The assessee declared LTCG of Rs. 4,37,82,238/- from the sale of shares of Pine Animation Ltd., which was claimed as exempt under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata, which suggested manipulation in the prices of penny stocks to generate bogus capital gains. The AO relied heavily on the investigation report, which indicated that the financial results of Pine Animation Ltd. did not justify the steep rise in share prices and that the shares were sold to certain "Exit Providers" involved in price manipulation. Despite the assessee furnishing evidence supporting the purchase and sale of shares, the AO deemed the transactions non-genuine.

2. Denial of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The AO rejected the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(38) by treating the LTCG as bogus, primarily relying on the investigation report without independent verification. The AO also denied the assessee's request for cross-examination of the persons whose statements were relied upon, citing that the Indian Evidence Act is not applicable to Income-tax Proceedings. The AO concluded that the LTCG was a colorable device to show artificial income.

3. Treatment of sale consideration as unexplained cash credit under Section 68:
The AO assessed the entire sale consideration of Rs. 4,39,75,148/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The AO's decision was based on the premise that the transactions were not genuine and were part of a scheme to generate bogus capital gains.

4. Estimation of commission expenses as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C:
The AO estimated that the assessee incurred expenses amounting to 5% of the sale consideration (Rs. 21,98,757/-) to procure the bogus LTCG and assessed this amount as unexplained commission expenditure under Section 69C of the Act.

5. Violation of principles of natural justice due to denial of cross-examination:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] observed that the AO had verbatim copied the investigation report without conducting an independent examination of the assessee's transactions. The CIT(A) also noted that the AO denied the assessee the opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) deleted both the additions made by the AO, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

Tribunal's Observations and Decision:

1. Reliance on Investigation Report:
The Tribunal noted that the AO primarily relied on a generalized investigation report without bringing any material on record to show that the assessee's transactions were part of manipulated transactions. The Tribunal emphasized that the SEBI had revoked its earlier order debarring the promoters of Pine Animation Ltd., indicating no adverse findings against them.

2. Genuineness of Transactions:
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided substantial evidence, including purchase through banking channels, dematerialization of shares, and sale through the stock exchange platform. The AO did not find any defects in these evidences. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's husband, a Chartered Accountant, guided the investment, and no adverse findings were made in their statements.

3. Jurisdictional High Court Decisions:
The Tribunal referred to various decisions of the Bombay High Court, which held that transactions of purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus if documentary evidence establishes their genuineness. The Tribunal found no reason to suspect the transactions in the present case.

4. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s observation that the AO violated the principles of natural justice by denying the assessee the opportunity for cross-examination.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO, holding that the sale transactions of shares were genuine. Consequently, the addition made under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit and the estimated commission expenses under Section 69C were also deleted. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

Order Pronounced:
The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 20th August, 2024.

---