Tribunal Erred in Deleting Share Trading Addition Without Proper Merit Examination Under Circular No. 5 of 2024

HC held that the tribunal erred in deleting the addition related to share trading, as it failed to examine the merits or correctness of the assessing officer's and CIT(A)'s reasoning, relying instead on a decision with only "substantially similar" facts. The court distinguished the present case from a recent decision disposed of on low tax effect, finding that the current matter falls within an exception under Circular No. 5 of 2024. Consequently, the HC set aside the tribunal's order and restored the appellate authority's and assessing officer's decision, ruling in favor of the revenue.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the deletion of disallowance of loss on share trading was justified despite failure to prove the genuineness of the transactions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961'Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in not applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court regarding bogus capital loss claims and penny stock transactions'Whether the assessee discharged the initial onus under Section 68 of the Act to prove the source and genuineness of the share trading transactions'Whether the appeal by the revenue is maintainable despite the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit, considering the exception for organized tax evasion cases under CBDT Circular No. 5/2024'Whether the principles of natural justice were violated by not furnishing the investigation report or allowing cross-examination of persons whose statements were recorded'Whether reliance on a coordinate bench decision without examining the facts and merits of the present case was legally justified by the tribunal?

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The Tribunal was not justified in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 51,33,870/- on account of share trading as the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions, which were found to be "sham and fabricated" and involved "organized tax evasion".The Tribunal erred in not considering the Supreme Court's decision in Pr. CIT (Cen)-1 Kolkata Vs. NRA Iron and Steel Pvt. Ltd. and the Calcutta High Court's decision in Pr. CIT (Cen)-2, Kolkata Vs. M/s. BST Infratech Ltd., which establish that losses from penny stocks involved in bogus capital loss claims cannot be allowed.The assessee did not discharge the initial onus under Section 68 as the transactions were shown to be part of a circular trading racket involving price rigging and manipulation, with no genuine business activity of the companies involved.The appeal by the revenue is maintainable notwithstanding the tax effect being below the monetary limit, as the case falls under the exception for "organized tax evasion including cases of bogus capital gains/loss through penny stocks and case of accommodation entries" under para 3.1(h) of CBDT Circular No. 5/2024.There was no violation of principles of natural justice as the assessee was apprised of the investigation report's contents, was given opportunity to reply, and there is no vested right to cross-examine persons whose statements do not specifically indict the assessee.The Tribunal committed a serious error by mechanically following a coordinate bench decision without examining the facts and merits of the present case or recording reasons for applicability, especially since the facts were only "substantially similar" and not identical.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the legal framework under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which casts the onus on the assessee to prove the source and genuineness of unexplained cash credits or share transactions.The Court relied on authoritative precedents including the Supreme Court's ruling in Sumati Dayal v. CIT, which permits testing genuineness on the "principle of preponderance of human probabilities" and the assessment of surrounding facts and circumstances.The Court emphasized the significance of the investigation report and findings of regulatory authorities (SEBI and SAT) that established manipulation and circular trading in penny stocks, which formed the basis for disallowance.The Court interpreted CBDT Circular No. 5/2024's exception clause (para 3.1(h)) as applicable to cases involving organized tax evasion, thus permitting departmental appeals despite low tax effect.The Court rejected the argument of violation of natural justice, citing that procedural fairness does not require formal cross-examination where the assessee is not specifically indicted, consistent with prior rulings including Swati Bajaj and Kishanlal Agarwalla.The Court noted a doctrinal emphasis on independent fact-based adjudication rather than mechanical reliance on coordinate bench decisions, especially where facts are not identical and the prior decision is under challenge or disposed of under a settlement scheme.

---