Short-Term Capital Loss Disallowed on FSI Rights and Shares Due to Lack of Genuine Market Transactions

ITAT Delhi upheld the disallowance of short-term capital loss claimed on the sale of commercial FSI rights and 4659 shares, rejecting the assessee's claim of distress sale due to market slowdown. The tribunal found that neither purchase nor sale prices reflected prevailing market rates, and transactions lacked genuineness as payments were not made timely and buyers lacked funds. Additionally, a pending PIL against the company whose shares were sold was noted, but no evidence showed any adverse action affecting business prospects. The tribunal was unconvinced that the sale was forced by market conditions and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Income Tax Act was justified despite the original return being processed under section 143(1) and no scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) having been made.Whether the short term capital loss (STCL) of approximately Rs. 27.94 crores, claimed on sale of commercial Floor Space Index (FSI) rights and shares of an unlisted company, was genuine and allowable for set-off against short term capital gains (STCG).Whether the transactions involving purchase and sale of commercial FSI rights and shares constituted sham transactions entered into solely to reduce tax liability.Whether interest levied under sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act was justified.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

On the issue of reopening under section 147, the appeal on this ground was not pressed and accordingly dismissed.The short term capital loss of Rs. 27,94,97,000/- was disallowed as the transactions were found to be "sham transactions" entered into to "set off the capital gains" and reduce tax liability; the loss was not allowed to be carried forward, and the corresponding capital gains of Rs. 27,92,30,441/- were added to the income.The transactions involving sale of commercial FSI rights and shares were held to be "arrangements" between group companies using third parties as conduits to create a "colorable device" and "veil of sale" lacking evidentiary value, thereby confirming the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s findings of "sham transactions".The interest levied under sections 234B and 234C was not specifically adjudicated upon in the judgment excerpt and thus no ruling was recorded on this issue.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly sections 139(1), 143(1), 143(3), 147, 148, 234B, and 234C, alongside principles relating to genuineness of transactions and tax avoidance.The Court relied on the factual matrix including the failure to provide a "concrete basis of valuation" for the FSI and shares, absence of payment consideration at the time of purchase and sale, the negative net worth of the companies involved, and the use of non-registered, unstamped agreements as evidence of a "colorable device" and "sham transactions".The Court noted that the purported distress sale explanations were contradicted by lack of financial necessity, absence of immediate payment, and the involvement of related group companies, undermining the genuineness of the transactions.Additional evidence submitted regarding license expiry and litigation affecting asset value was examined; however, documentary proof showed the license was extended beyond the relevant period and no adverse impact from litigation was established, negating the claim of distress sale.The Court emphasized that the burden to establish bona fide nature and valuation of transactions rested on the assessee, which was not discharged satisfactorily.

---