2025 (9) TMI 1648 - AT - Income Tax

Revision under s.263 quashed; appeal allowed as taxpayer proved purchases and s.10(38) exemption with bank evidence

ITAT (Chandigarh) quashed the revision under s.263 and allowed the appeal, holding that the taxpayer satisfactorily proved purchase transactions totaling ... Revision u/s 263 - Bogus LTCG/STCG through the use of penny stocks being sold to facilitate these transactions by way of manipulated trading - HELD THAT:- The assessee before us, is able to prove that this consideration for purchase of shares of Rs. 2.50 lakhs is received from Sanjay and Sons HUF and this is correlated by assessee’s counsel, before us from the bank account of Sh. Sanjay and Sons HUF as well as copy of account produced before us in assessee’s paper book. The assessee has also filed affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Karta of HUF and admitting the transfer of amount of Rs. 2.50 lakhs on 26.07.2013 on behalf of the assessee towards purchase of shares. We find that assessee is able to prove the transaction of shares. In regard to another transaction of Rs. 1.70 lakhs for purchase of shares, we noted that the assessee was able to file the details before us, being payment made from the copy of account of the assessee’s books, hence, we find that the purchase transaction are explained. We noted that the sale of shares is properly explained by assessee, and the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) is within the provisions of the law. Even the AO has carried out proper enquiry and, after enquiry reach conclusion that the assessee’s claim is as per law i.e. both purchase and sales. Hence, we find no error in the assessment order, and this is no prejudice cause to the revenue. Hence, we quash the revision order and allow the assessee’s appeal. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the revision under Section 263 could be sustained where the Assessing Officer (AO) had accepted long-term capital gain (LTCG) exempt under Section 10(38) after examining contract notes, purchase invoices and verifying transactions on recognised stock exchange and banking channels. 2. Whether the revisionary authority was justified in treating claimed sale proceeds as bogus and directing addition under Sections 68/69A for lack of verification of pre-acquisition payments and demat account entries. 3. Whether absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence in the assessee's name (bank passbook in third party name; non-production of demat statement at show-cause stage) amounted to proof of false claim so as to justify setting aside the assessment as prejudicial to revenue. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Validity of Section 263 revision where AO examined exchange contract notes, invoices and banking entries Legal framework: Section 263 permits revision of an assessment if the order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. The AO's duty is to make enquiries necessary to reach a just conclusion; the revisionary authority evaluates whether requisite enquiries were made and whether the AO's conclusion suffers from error causing prejudice. Precedent Treatment: No specific precedents were invoked by the Court in the judgment; the Tribunal assessed factual and legal sufficiency of the AO's inquiries against the statutory standard under Section 263. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the AO's assessment record which recorded verification of original return, purchase invoices and contract notes issued by a recognised stock exchange member and noted transactions passed through banking channels and exchange settlement. The Tribunal held that the AO had carried out proper enquiry into the sales and purchases and reached a permissible conclusion that the LTCG claim was in accordance with law. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where AO examined exchange contract notes, purchase invoices and banking settlement evidence and reached a conclusion accepting Section 10(38) exemption, a revision under Section 263 cannot be sustained merely because the revisionary authority believed additional verification (e.g., broker confirmation or demat statements) could have been made, absent a showing that the AO's conclusion was erroneous and prejudicial. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the AO's assessment was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue in respect of acceptance of LTCG under Section 10(38), and that the revision order under Section 263 in this respect was not justified. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Direction to add sale proceeds under Sections 68/69A based on alleged bogus transactions and lack of verification Legal framework: Section 68 relates to unexplained cash credits, and Section 69A to investments not fully explained; additions require that the assessee's explanation be inadequate or unsubstantiated. Under Section 263, the revisioning officer must show AO's order is erroneous and prejudicial. Precedent Treatment: No prior authority was applied to displace AO's findings; the Tribunal relied on evidentiary assessment of material placed before it (bank records, affidavit, books of account) to test the revisionary direction for additions under Sections 68/69A. Interpretation and reasoning: The PCIT treated the claim as bogus because (i) payment evidence included a bank passbook in the name of a third party HUF, (ii) no demat statement was produced, and (iii) investigation wing raised suspicions about manipulated penny-stock trades. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's production before it of: (a) bank account evidence showing funds from the HUF on behalf of the assessee; (b) an affidavit from the HUF's karta confirming transfer; and (c) books/ledgers corroborating the other purchase. The Tribunal held these explanations and documents satisfactorily explained the source and genuineness of purchases and sales, removing the basis for additions under Sections 68/69A. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where adequate explanations and documentary corroboration (bank records, affidavit from third party source, books of account and exchange contract notes) are produced before the appellate/tribunal forum, additions under Sections 68/69A directed by a revisionary authority cannot be sustained unless the material on record conclusively demonstrates fabrication. Conclusions: The Tribunal set aside the direction to add the sale proceeds under Sections 68/69A, finding the transactions adequately explained and the AO's acceptance reasonable; thus no addition was warranted. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Effect of non-production of demat statement and third-party bank account entries at revision stage Legal framework: Explanation of transactions may rest on various forms of evidence; absence of a particular document (e.g., demat statement) does not ipso facto prove falsehood if other credible corroborative evidence exists. Burden of proof for unexplained credit normally rests on assessee to satisfy AO, but on revision, the authority must demonstrate AO's error. Precedent Treatment: The decision did not cite binding authority but applied principles of evidentiary sufficiency and the requirement that the revisionary authority identify a specific error prejudicial to revenue rather than substitute its own view where AO's inquiry was adequate. Interpretation and reasoning: The PCIT emphasised the missing demat statement and a bank passbook not in the assessee's name. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's subsequent production of corroborative material (bank receipts showing payment from the HUF, affidavit from karta, books of account and existing contract notes) and accepted the explanation that payments were made by the HUF on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal observed that transactions executed through recognised exchange with STT paid and settled through exchange and banking channels weigh in favour of genuineness. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - absence of one category of contemporaneous document (demat statement) does not automatically render a claim bogus where other credible documentary evidence establishes the reality of transactions; revision cannot be sustained on mere suspicion arising from missing documents when AO had verified available documents. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded the missing demat statement and presence of third-party bank entries did not justify treating the claim as false; the assessee's explanations and corroborative evidence rendered the transactions genuine for tax purposes. OVERALL CONCLUSION The Tribunal quashed the revision order under Section 263, held that the AO had undertaken sufficient inquiry and legitimately accepted the exemption under Section 10(38) after verifying contract notes and banking settlement, and found no justification to direct additions under Sections 68/69A. The Tribunal allowed the appeal.