2025 (8) TMI 637 - AT - Income Tax

Capital Gains from Share Sales Not Bogus Without Evidence Under Income Tax Law Section

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana Versus Avinash Singla, Khanna And DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana Versus Meenu Singla, Khanna

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana Versus Avinash Singla, Khanna And DCIT, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana Versus Meenu Singla, Khanna - TMI 1. ISSUES:1. Whether delay in presenting an appeal before the Tribunal can be condoned under Section 253(5) on the ground of 'sufficient cause'.2. Whether additions treating capital gains on sale of certain shares as bogus can be sustained in assessments framed under Section 153A where the only material found during search is a SEBI warning/letter.3. Whether a SEBI caution/warning letter of the type relied upon constitutes 'incriminating material' for the purposes of reopening or reassessing completed/unabated assessments under Section 153A.4. Whether an Assessing Officer may make additions based solely on information available on revenue portals without independent verification or corroborative seized material.2. RULINGS / HOLDINGS:1. On delay: The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' in Section 253(5) is to be construed liberally and condoned the delay, applying the principle that 'sufficient cause' must be interpreted in a 'justice oriented approach' and noting authorities that reasoned 'Every day's delay must be explained' should not be applied pedantically.2. On scope of Section 153A: The Tribunal held that assessment under Section 153A can be made in respect of completed/unabated assessments only if there is 'incriminating material' unearthed during the search; otherwise additions in respect of completed assessments cannot be sustained and the Revenue's remedy is reassessment under Sections 147/148 subject to their conditions.3. On SEBI letter as evidence: The Tribunal held the SEBI warning/letter is not 'incriminating material' because it is a public cautionary communication that does not indicate undisclosed transactions, involvement in price manipulation by the assessee, or any modus operandi (e.g., cash-for-cheque), and therefore additions treating the capital gains as bogus could not be sustained.4. On officer's verification duty: The Tribunal held that mere reliance on information available on revenue portals, without cross-verification or independent inquiry, is insufficient to displace documentary evidence (contract notes, bank receipts, purchase/sale records) and sustain additions.3. RATIONALE:1. Statutory framework: Section 253(5) (condonation of delay before the Tribunal) invokes the established judicial principle that 'sufficient cause' warrants liberal construction; Section 153A is linked to searches under Section 132/132A and contemplates assessment/reassessment for six years, while Sections 147/148 remain the statutory route where no incriminating material is found for completed assessments.2. Precedents applied: The Tribunal relied on authoritative rulings emphasizing liberal construction of limitation provisions (including the principles in Collector Land Acquisition and N. Balakrishnan) to condone delay, and on higher-court pronouncements (including the Supreme Court's analysis in the Abhisar Buildwell line of decisions and related High Court authorities such as Kabul Chawla) to construe the scope of Section 153A and the requirement of 'incriminating material'.3. Definition and test for 'incriminating material': The Tribunal adopted the test that a document qualifies as 'incriminating' only if it indicates 'undisclosed transaction/activity, which is not reflected in the books of account or return of income' and there is a sufficient nexus between the seized material and the addition sought; a cautionary/public warning letter lacking indication of undisclosed receipts, involvement, or concealment does not meet that test.4. Distinction between abated and completed assessments: The Tribunal followed the doctrinal position that absent incriminating material discovered during search, completed/unabated assessments cannot be reopened under Section 153A and the Revenue must proceed under Sections 147/148, thereby preserving the legislative distinction between assessment routes and preventing duplication of assessment orders.5. Evidentiary and procedural obligation on revenue authorities: The Tribunal emphasized that an Assessing Officer must undertake independent verification and cannot treat portal information as conclusive; where the assessee produces contemporaneous documentary evidence (contract notes, bank credits), the AO's failure to cross-verify renders additions based solely on external warnings unsustainable.