AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1489
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of Mohan Lal Agarwal (HUF), wherein the brief facts are that the assessee is a HUF which carried out business of trading in iron and steel. The assessee has claimed exemption u/s.10(38) of Rs. 24,60,241/- on Long Term Capital Gain resulting on sale of shares of M/s. CCL International Ltd. which was purchased for Rs. 97,800 on 11.05.2009 and was sold on 12.12.2013 for Rs. 26,06,548/- in the assessment year 2014- 15. Learned AO observed that assessee had purchased 10,000 shares of M/s. CCL International Ltd. on 11.05.2009 @ Rs. 16.30 per share though face value of the shares were Rs. 10 each and these were locked for a period of one year ten months as per SEBI Regulation and trading of the shares started from 28.11.2011. Thereafter he has quoted the price of the said scrip in the Bombay Stock Exchange from 06.02.2010 to 19.12.2016. The moment of the share price for each day starting from 6February, 2010 to 19December, 2016 has been incorporated in the impugned order and from the trend of share price moment, he held that the price of these shares had risen manifolds and thereby inferred that 3 the reason for astronomical rise was not related to any fundamentals of market. Wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re are no proper bills supporting the purchase price. The details submitted by the appellant failed to substantiate the genuineness of transactions in so far as purchase of shares is concerned. The shares transferred by the appellant reflect such a huge price rise in the shares of a defunct company without corresponding fundamentals, corroborated by information received from Investigation Wing of Department that the shares have been traded violating the SEBI's guidelines. In view of these facts it cannot be said that appellant has discharged the primary onus of proving the genuineness of transactions. However, it is noted that AO has added the entire sale consideration u/s 69A however, actual money introduced by the appellant in books of accounts during the year is long term capital gain i.e. Rs. 26,05,548/- (-) Rs. 1,63,000/- i.e. Rs. 24,42,548/- is the addition confirmed u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE. Hence, these grounds of appeal are partly allowed while confirming action of 5 AO of making an addition on account of bogus long term capital gain claimed u/s 10(38)." 5. Before us, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that Assessee had purchased 10,000 shares on 11.05.2009 @ 16.30 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s years in several cases in scrutiny proceedings. Thus, without any material on record, simply by general observation and conjectures, no adverse inference could have been drawn. He also filed various judgments of this Tribunal and also assessment records and the assessment order in the case of other assessees, wherein similar scrip has been accepted qua the same assessment year or subsequent assessment year. 7 7. On the other hand, learned Department Representative has strongly relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT (A) and submitted that such a huge rise in the price itself shows that everything was not right and in some of the case, Investigation Wing Kolkata has found that scrip of M/s. CCL International Ltd. were used for providing accommodation entries by the brokers. Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT (A) needs to be confirmed. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders as well as mater referred to before us. As discussed above, assessee has purchased 10,000 shares on 11.05.2009 @ 16.30 per share for total amount of Rs. 1,63,000/- out of which Rs. 20,000/- was paid in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anywhere; * Secondly, there is no material that any action has been taken by the SEBI against this company and such an action of black-listing this company had attained finality and; * Lastly, it is also matter of record that the Department in other cases under scrutiny proceedings has accepted similar transaction of sale of shares of M/s. CCL International Ltd. 10. Nowhere the evidences filed by the assessee has been rebutted or any inquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the Assessing Officer or by the ld. CIT(A) to prove that assessee was involved in any clandestine manner for routing its own unaccounted money. If the assessee has filed the entire evidences relating to purchase which is mostly through cheque shown in the earlier years and also filed all the details of sale transactions and the shares which have been routed through Demat account and sold through stock exchange on a quoted price on that date, then onus shifts upon the Department to prove that all these evidences are only make believe documents and certain minimal inquiry is required to rebut all these evidences. As stated above, nowhere it has been found that assessee was in any manner found ....