TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 261
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s bogus and, therefore, he was pleased to add the entire sale consideration of M/s. NFGL of Rs. 2.16 cr. as income of the assessee. The AO also held that in order to raise such capital gain, the assessee must have incurred some cost towards commission, therefore, the AO estimated such commission @ 5% of sale value and added a sum of Rs. 10,82,460/- to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who was pleased to confirm the action of the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 3. Before us the Ld. AR submitted that the addition made by the AO and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) was based on presumption and suspicion alone and, therefore, perverse in the eyes of law. In the course of hearing of the case, the Ld. AR referred to various documentary evidences furnished in the paper book in support of the claim of the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions relating to LTCG on sale of shares. The Ld. AR drew our attention to the order of the AO wherein the AO has erroneously recorded at para 3.1 that the assessee had purchased the shares of M/s. NFGL off market (not through established stock exchange) whereas the assessee had pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (FY 2012-13 corresponding to AY 2013-14) along with details of investments (page nos. 4 and 5 of paper book) wherein 25000 shares of M/s. NFGL of value of Rs. 32,21,269.18 is reflected and we note that the assessee had made investment in 30 no. of different shares including that of L&T, Reliance, TISCO, Infosys, ICICI, Infotech etc. and had investments altogether of Rs. 87,44,010.73 which has been duly reflected in page 4 of the paper book which is the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2013 wherein the share investment of Rs. 87,44,010.73 has duly been reflected and is tallying. ii) Contract Note for purchase of shares of M/s. NFGL is found placed at page 6 of the paper book. iii) Copy of the bank statement highlighted the payment of purchase of shares through bank (paper book page 18 & 19). iv) Copy of de mat holding statement and transaction statement highlighting the movement of shares from page 25 to 33 of the paper book. v) Copy of ledger of assessee in the books of the share broker pages 34 to 36 of the paper book. Following documents were filed before the authorities below in support of the sale of the shares: i) copy of contract note for sale of shares of M/s. NFGL page....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-11 adverse features on page 6-7 of the Assessment order, however he wondered as to how these features were relating to the Company (M/s. NFGL) in the case of assessee was not at all demonstrated. Thus according to ld AR, there was no material whatsoever to hold that the Company (M/s. NFGL) dealt by the assessee was having such pattern or features. It was submitted that the AO disallowed the assessee's claim of LTCG on sale of shares on surmises, suspicion and presumptions alone. It was submitted that the lower authorities have not brought any material or evidence on record to falsify the claim of the assessee or to hold that the share transactions were bogus. 5. The ld AR drew our attention to the fact that the purchase and sale of shares was made on the online platform of the stock exchange; therefore according to ld AR, the assessee did not know the names of the buyers and has no connection and/or relations with any such persons. The transactions of sale of shares were online trading system through his broker from whom he received the sale consideration. The broker also received payments for all his transactions from Stock Exchange. The seller and the buyer cannot know the name....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his unaccounted income in the form of LTCG. The ld AR referred to the judgement of Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT [2017] 164 ITD 1 (Mumbai-Trib.)(SB) The Tribunal observed as under: 46. ......... Ultimately the entire case of Revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so called secret money in the form of premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that GTC actually had some kind of a share in such secret money. It is quite a trite law that suspicion howsoever strong may be but cannot be the basis of addition except for some material evidence on record. The theory of 'preponderance of probability' is applied to weigh the evidences of either side and draw a conclusion in favour of a party which has more favourable factors in his side. The conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of certain admitted facts and materials and not on the basis of presumptions of facts that might go against the assessee. Once nothing has been proved against the assessee with aid of any dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erably failed to substantiate that. The High Court held that the transactions were at the prevailing price and therefore the suspicion of the AO was misplaced and not substantiated. (ii) CIT V. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co. Limited [2013] 40 taxmann.com 439 (Cal) - In this case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that on the basis of a suspicion howsoever strong it is not possible to record any finding of fact. As a matter of fact suspicion can never take the place of proof. It was further held that in absence of any evidence on record, it is difficult if not impossible, to hold that the transactions of buying or selling of shares were colourable transactions or were resorted to with ulterior motive. (iii) CIT V. Shreyashi Ganguli [ITA No. 196 of 2012] (Cal HC) - In this case the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that the Assessing Officer doubted the transactions since the selling broker was subjected to SEBI's action. However the transactions were as per norms and suffered STT, brokerage, service tax, and cess. There is no iota of evidence over the transactions as it were reflected in demat account. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. (iv) CIT V. Rungta Properti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition to the aforesaid judgements, has referred to and relied on the following cases:- (i) Baijnath Agarwal vs. ACIT - [2010] 40 SOT 475 (Agra (TM) (ii) ITO vs. Bibi Rani Bansal - [2011] 44 SOT 500 (Agra) (TM) (iii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal - ITA No. 289/Agra/2009 (Agra ITAT) (iv) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (v) Rita Devi & Others vs. DCIT - IT(SS))A Nos. 22-26/Kol/2p11 (Kol ITAT) (vi) Surya Prakash Toshniwal vs. ITO - ITA No. 1213/Kol/2016 (Kol ITAT) (vii) Sunita Jain vs. ITO - ITA No. 201 & 502/Ahd/2016 (Ahmedabad ITAT) (viii) Ms. Farrah Marker vs. ITO - ITA No. 3801/Mum/2011 (Mumbai ITAT) (ix) Anil Nandkishore Goyal vs. ACIT - ITA Nos. 1256/PN/2012 (Pune ITAT) (x) CIT vs. Sudeep Goenka - [2013] 29 taxmann.com 402 (Allahabad HC) (xi) CIT vs. Udit Narain Agarwal - [2013] 29 taxmann.com 76 (Allahabad HC) (xii) CIT vs. Jamnadevi Agarwal [2012] 20 taxmann.com 529 (Bombay HC) (xiii) CIT vs. Himani M. Vakil - [2014] 41 taxmann.com 425 (Gujarat HC) (xiv) CIT vs. Maheshchandra G. Vakil - [2013] 40 taxmann.com 326 (Gujarat HC) (xv) CIT vs. Sumitra Devi [2014] 49 Taxmann.com 37 (Rajasthan HC) (xvi) Ganeshmull Bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agra ITAT) (ii) ACIT vs. Amita Agarwal & Others - ITA Nos. 247/(Kol)/ of 2011 (Kol ITAT) (iii) Lalit Mohan Jalan (HUF) vs. ACIT - ITA No. 693/Kol/2009 (Kol ITAT) (iv) Mukesh R. Marolia vs. Addl. CIT - [2006] 6 SOT 247 (Mum) 12. The ld AR also submitted that the AO was not justified in disallowing the assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act by concluding that the transactions of the assessee resulting in LTCG on sale of shares were bogus relying on the statements of various unknown persons recorded by Investigation Wing wherein these persons accepted to have provided accommodation entries of various natures including LTCG to different persons. The ld AR submitted that in the statement of third parties, the name of the assessee was not implicated. Even otherwise, no adverse inference could be taken against the assessee on the basis of untested statements without allowing opportunity of cross-examination. The ld AR referred to and relied on the following judgements in support of the aforesaid submissions:- (i) Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE - [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) (ii) ITO vs. Ashok Kumar Bansal - ITA No. 289/Agr/2009 (Agr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Ld. DR vehemently supported the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)/AO and does not want us to interfere in the impugned order. 15. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It was brought to our notice by the Ld. AR in the assessment order at para 3.13 the AO has stated in sub-para 'c' that "the assessee purchased shares at Rs. 865.97 per share ......". It was pointed out by the Ld. AR that the assessee has purchased share of M/s. NFLG for Rs. 128.25 per share which is reflected in page 6 of the paper book which is the contract note. According to Ld. AR this is nothing but cut paste of some other case and has nothing to do with the assessee's case and it exposes non-application of mind of the AO. We find that the AO has stated that the assessee has purchased the share at Rs. 865 per share whereas the assessee had purchased the shares at Rs. 128.25, therefore, we note that the AO erred in making the erroneous finding of the purchase value of the shares. We note that in this case the assessee was investing in different shares of the companies (30 different shares of companies ) as evident from perusal of page 5 of paper book and the purchase and sale of shares in M/s. NFG....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ement of Demat account corroborate the sale of scrips of M/s. NFGL (from 07.08.2013 - 30.10.2013). A perusal of pages 34-36 of paper book, which is the ledger of assessee in the books of share broker (01.04.2014 to 31.03.2014) corroborates the sale transaction of scrips of M/s. NFGL. 17. The assessee had sold the shares on 05.08.2013 5000 shares at the value of Rs. 820/- per share and paid STT and received a consideration of Rs. 40,82,079/- which the assessee received by account payee cheque which is reflected in page 21 of the paper book received on 24.08.2013. Like wise, the other sale transactions are reflected from pages 8 to 17 of the paper book for different rates from Rs. 845/- per share, Rs. 865/- per share, Rs. 920/- per share, Rs. 921/- per share etc. and the assessee has received the said consideration through account payee cheque. It was pointed out by the Ld. AR that when a show cause notice was given by the AO on 09.12.2016 wherein the assessee was asked to explain why the sale consideration of Rs. 2,16,49,202/- shall not be added back u/s. 68 of the Act as well as Rs. 10,82,460/- being 5% of the said sum be added u/s. 69C of the Act, the assessee promptly replied to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sence of any other material to suggest an adverse view. The AO/Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting legally admissible evidence and wrongly took adverse view against the claim of assessee based on surmises, suspicion and conjecture. This action of AO/Ld. CIT(A) is akin to convert "Proof into no proof." We note that AO while describing the modus operandi adopted by unscrupulous elements in the financial markets has made a vague statement that some accommodation entry provider has admitted that M/s. NFGL also indulged in wrong practices, however, we sought the Ld. DR's help to throw some light on this specific allegation made by the AO. However, other than the bald statement, nothing adverse could be found against the shares of M/s. NFGL. Even if for argument sake if there was such an adverse admission made by an accommodation provider against M/s. NFGL, then the AO in all fairness had to confront the assessee with the adverse material and given an opportunity to the assessee to meet it and the assessee should have been given an opportunity to explain it; and in case the assessee desires, she should have been allowed to cross examine the accommodation provider or else the adverse material c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the transactions of the sale of shares by the assessee was duly supported by relevant evidences including contract notes, demat statement, bank account reflecting the transactions, stock brokers have confirmed the transactions, the stock exchange have confirmed the transactions, the shares have been sold on the online platform of the stock exchange and each trade of sale of shares were having unique trade number and trade time. It is not the case of the AO that the shares which were sold on the date mentioned in the contract note were not the traded price on that particular date. The AO doubted the transactions due to the high rise in the stock price and for that the assessee cannot be blamed unless there was any material/ evidence to prove that the assessee or any one on his behalf has rigged or manipulated the stock price. It should be noted that the stock exchange of SEBI are the statutory authority appointed by the Government of India to ensure that there is no stock rigging or manipulation. The AO has not brought any evidence on record to show that these agencies have alleged any stock manipulation against the assessee or the brokers or the companies in question. In abse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ld. DR could not controvert the facts supported with material evidences which are on record and could only rely on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). We note that in the absence of material/evidence the allegations that the assessee/brokers got involved in price rigging/manipulation of shares must therefore also fail. At the cost of repetition, we note that the assessee had furnished all relevant evidence in the form of bills, contract notes, demat statement and bank account to prove the genuineness of the transactions relevant to the purchase and sale of shares resulting in long term capital gain. These evidences were neither found by the AO nor by the ld. CIT(A) to be false or fictitious or bogus. The facts of the case and the evidence in support of the evidence clearly support the claim of the assessee that the transactions of the assessee were genuine and the authorities below was not justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee that income from LTCG is exempted u/s 10(38) of the Act. For coming to such a conclusion we rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s. Alipine Investments in ITA No.620 of 2008 dated 26th August, 2008 wherein the High....