2026 (3) TMI 888 - AT - Income Tax

Genuineness of Share Transactions upheld where contemporaneous documentary evidence defeats unexplained credit and commission additions.

Genuineness of share transactions was upheld where year specific contemporaneous documentary evidence (preferential allotment letters, demat statements, ... Treatment of sale proceeds as unexplained credit u/s 68 - addition u/s 69C for commission on accommodation entries - requirement of year-specific tangible evidence to sustain sham-transaction findings HELD THAT: - The Tribunal examined contemporaneous documentary evidence supporting the genuineness of the transactions - preferential allotment/allotment letters, demat holdings held for more than one year, contract notes evidencing sale on a recognised stock exchange, STT payment and receipt of sale proceeds through banking channels. It held that statements and seizure material relied upon by the Department related to third-party entry operators recorded before the sales and did not establish a nexus with the appellant's specific transactions in the year under appeal. Relying on coordinate-bench decisions and the principle that each assessment year is a separate unit, the Tribunal found the AO/CIT(A) lacked fresh, tangible year-specific material to treat the transactions as sham; suspicion or prior-year findings alone were insufficient to sustain additions. Consequently the section 68 and corollary section 69C additions were not sustained for the year under appeal. Assessing Officer has to bring tangible material on record to support his finding that there has been collusion or connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted money. A transaction of purchase and sale of shares, supported by contract notes, demat statements, and account payee cheques, cannot be treated as bogus.[Paras 9, 10] Final Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals: it reversed the additions under section 68 and section 69C and the finding of sham transactions for the assessee in the cited assessment years, holding that the Department failed to produce year-specific tangible evidence to controvert contemporaneous documentary records of genuine share transactions. Issues: (i) Whether the transactions in listed shares giving rise to alleged long-term capital gains are sham transactions warranting addition of sale proceeds as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961; (ii) Whether an addition representing commission/embedded cost may be made under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and whether section 115BBE applies.Issue (i): Whether the share transactions are sham transactions and sale proceeds of Rs. 28,30,02,560/- (and corresponding sums in related appeals) are liable to be added as unexplained credits under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Analysis: The Tribunal examined year-specific contemporaneous documentary evidence including preferential allotment letters, demat statements, contract notes, STT payment records and banking channels for purchase and sale; it compared these materials with reliance placed on third-party statements and past search findings. The Tribunal applied the legal requirement that the revenue must bring tangible material specific to the assessment year to overturn the assessee's explanation and that mere reliance on statements recorded in earlier years or suspicion is insufficient. The Tribunal also considered coordinate-bench decisions where similar additions were deleted and noted the independence of each assessment year.Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the transactions were genuine for the years under appeal and that the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) erred in treating the transactions as sham; the additions under Section 68 are reversed. The conclusion is in favour of the assessee.Issue (ii): Whether an addition of the estimated commission (6.5% or specified amounts) under Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is sustainable, and whether Section 115BBE applies to such additions.Analysis: The Tribunal considered whether the revenue established that any commission expenditure was incurred and whether there was year-specific evidence justifying estimation. Having found that the principal finding of bogus transaction under Section 68 was not established for the years under appeal, and that no independent tangible evidence for commission payment in the relevant years was produced, the Tribunal held that the correlating Section 69C additions and application of Section 115BBE could not be sustained.Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Section 69C additions are not justified for the years under appeal and reversed those additions. The conclusion is in favour of the assessee.Final Conclusion: On the issues decided, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, reversed the additions made under Sections 68 and 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and held that the transactions giving rise to claimed long-term capital gains were genuine for the assessment years before it, resulting in overall relief to the assessee.Ratio Decidendi: Where the revenue challenges the genuineness of share transactions the finding of sham transaction and addition under Sections 68/69C must be supported by tangible, year specific material; mere reliance on prior years' searches or third party statements, and suspicion, is insufficient to displace contemporaneous documentary evidence (demat statements, contract notes, STT payment and bank receipts) showing regular market transactions.